2002 The Making of Extraordinary Facts

Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. 33 (2002) 265–288 www.elsevier.com/locate/shpsa

The making of extraordinary facts: authentication of singularities of nature at the Royal Society of London in the first half of the eighteenth century Palmira Fontes da Costa Unit of History and Philosophy of Science, New University of Lisbon, Quinta de Torre, 2825 Monte de Caparica, Portugal

Abstract This paper is concerned with the particular problems raised by observations of phenomena outside the common course of nature for their validation as knowledge. It examines to what extent the content of the reports and, in particular, their lack of intrinsic plausibility affected the methods used in their authentication and the assessment of testimony at the Royal Society in the first half of the eighteenth century. I show that literary strategies were usually necessary but not sufficient for the validation of these kinds of observations. Next, I discuss why visual representations were especially useful in establishing the singularity of the observations, but I point out that their high costs and other restrictions meant that they were not so widespread.

In contrast I show that, for a long period of time, testimony was used in the majority of the reports as the true stamp of authenticity. I note, however, that the Royal Society accepted reports by authors of varied social status, level of education and occupation, and I discuss some of the factors responsible for the complexity of the handling of testimony at the Society.

I argue against Shapin that in the case of reports of extraordinary phenomena, the competence of the reporter and witnesses was often more important than their social status. The increasing role of expertise in the assessment of observations at the Society become especially apparent by the middle of the eighteenth century.  2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Authentication; Competence; Monstrous births; Singular; Testimony; Royal Society of London

0039-3681/02/$ - see front matter  2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

PII: S 0 0 3 9 - 3 6 8 1 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 1 2 - 2

266

P. Fontes da Costa / Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. 33 (2002) 265–288

1. Introduction Reports on extraordinary phenomena of nature were frequently read at the meetings of the Royal Society or published in the Philosophical Transactions during the first half of the eighteenth century. Cases regularly presented included double children and animals joined in one body, foetuses without brains or without mouths, hermaphrodites, dwarfs, giants, pregnancies which lasted for some years and foetuses which were delivered by the anus or by the navel. The more uncommon accounts presented had such titles as ‘a monstrous boy of 13 years old with the posterior parts of another child growing out of his breast’, ‘a monstrous lamb with a face, shoulders, arms to the elbows and whole trunk of a man and with very little wool on those parts’, ‘a monstrous foetus of a sow participating partly of the sow and partly of the dog kind’, ‘a monstrous calf which looked like a flying calf having two appendices on each side of the shoulders’.1 In this paper, I want to address the relevance of the Royal Society’s interest in singularities of nature for the problem of validation of knowledge. Specifically: what particular problems did observations of phenomena outside the common course of nature raise for their authentication as knowledge? Were there significant changes in the mechanisms involved in their assessment at the Royal Society during the eighteenth century? What do these mechanisms tell us about the meaning of authenticity for the Society in this period?

Seventeenth-century solutions to the issue of validation in the making and diffusion of natural knowledge have received growing attention in the two last decades.

Peter Dear has argued convincingly that it was in the course of this period that the Aristotelian notion of experience informing traditional natural philosophy was called into question (Dear, 1985, 1991a). Experience as ‘that which is always or that which is for the most part’ (Aristotle, Metaphysics, 1027a 20–27) was rejected by members of the Royal Society and Jesuit natural philosophers in favour of historically specific accounts of what happened at a particular time and place to a particular observer or experimenter. Histories of nature covering not only particular observations but also experiments constituted, therefore, the new domain of experience.2 In contrast to the Aristotelian view in which ‘knowledge depends on the recognition of the universal’ (Aristotle, Posterior analytics, 87b 37–39), the individual now had a foundational rather than incidental relationship to the production of knowledge (Dear, 1990). To the new concept of experience corresponded a new discursive and authoritative form, the report or account of a particular event, including monstrous births and other extraordinary phenomena.

The history of the concept of ‘matter of fact’ has also been central to these new historiographical studies. Its legal origins, including the role of credible testimony, have been established (Shapiro, 1983, 1994; Sargent, 1989). The role of the miraculous, the prodigious and the monstrous in the development of the concept have also

1 2

Royal Society’s Journal Books, Jan. 13, 1732; Apr. 9, 1713; Dec. 10, 1713; Dec. 4, 1706.

On the specificity of experimental accounts, see Bazerman (1988), pp. 59–79.

P. Fontes da Costa / Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. 33 (2002) 265–288

267

been pointed out (Dear, 1990; Daston, 1988b, 1991). Furthermore, Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer have established the crucial role of matters of fact in securing agreement about claims to knowledge in the natural philosophical enterprise of Robert Boyle and other early members of the Royal Society (Shapin, 1984; Shapin & Schaffer, 1985, pp. 22–79). For these natural philosophers, matters of fact were presented as supposedly theory-neutral statements about what someone had experienced, and as the items of knowledge about which it was legitimate to be ‘morally certain’. The use of this category implied, therefore, an increased reliance upon probability, in contrast to the traditional use of demonstrative argument.3 Moreover, it has been argued that the new emphasis on matters of fact was linked to the protection of the civil order of knowledge-producing communities and to efforts to civilize academic manners (Shapin, 1984, pp. 502–511; Shapin & Schaffer, 1985, pp. 72– 76; Daston, 1991). In particular, it has been shown that the appeal to matters of fact was an effective way of overcoming sectarianism amongst natural philosophers (Shapin, 1984, pp. 502–507; Shapin & Schaffer, 1985, pp. 72–76).

The different mechanisms used in the establishment of matters of fact are particularly relevant in the context of this paper. Rhetorical strategies have been shown to be important in framing the authority of the accounts (Dear, 1991b; Serjeantson, 1999). However, it is the crucial role of the management of testimony of natural observations and experiments in their authentication as knowledge that has recently received major attention.4 In his influential work A social history of truth (1994), Steven Shapin has argued for the central role of gentlemen in the management of testimony in seventeenth-century England. In his view, gentlemen were viewed as the right kind of person to trust because of their freedom of action, codes of virtue and honour. This endowed them with the necessary characteristics that ensured credibility and, hence, compelled assent. One of my points of contention in this paper is that Shapin does not put sufficient emphasis on the content of the report and on the testifier’s competence.

In this paper, I examine to what extent the content of the reports and, in particular, their lack of intrinsic plausibility affected the methods used in their authentication and the assessment of testimony at the Royal Society in the first half of the eighteenth century. I start by analysing some of the literary strategies used in establishing the veracity of the reports as well as the problem of the borderline between factual and fictional accounts. Next, I focus on the special role of visual representations in the process of authentication of these kinds of observations. I then discuss the role of testimony in the validation of observations of extraordinary phenomena of nature. I argue against Shapin that in the case of reports of extraordinary phenomena the competence of the reporter and witnesses was often more important than their social status. Finally, I discuss the problem of the relationship between the imperative of 3

On the role of probability in seventeenth-century natural knowledge, see Shapiro (1983) and Daston (1988a), pp. 191–210.

4 For a comprehensive study of testimony in seventeenth-century natural knowledge, see Shapin (1994).

For a philosophical study of testimony, see Coady (1994). For an assessment of Shapin and Coady’s very different views on testimony, see Lipton (1998).

268

P. Fontes da Costa / Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. 33 (2002) 265–288

authenticity and the rules of civility and social authority in force at the Royal Society.

I suggest that this relationship had undergone significant changes by the end of the first half of the eighteenth century.

2. The embellishment of the singular Claiming possession of the specimen under observation, or its remains, was one of the strategies used to heighten the impression of authenticity of reports. In the account of ‘a woman who voided the greatest part of a Foetus by the Navel’, for example, Mr. Christopher Birbeck remarked that he had all the Bones (except some few lost) at his Lodgings at Easingwold, nine miles from York, to the Northward (Birbeck, 1700–1701, p. 1000). Others, such as the physicians Daniel de Superville and Claude Nicholas le Cat made reference to their collection of monstrous foetuses (De Superville, 1739–1741, p. 303; Le Cat, 1767, p. 11). Possible donations to the Society were also stressed, such as in the account of ‘a Child born with all its Bones displaced’ where the surgeon, Edward Davis, remarks that he intends, ‘if the Child dies, to do what [he] can to get it, and make a Present to the Royal Society’ (Davis, 1746–1747, p. 541).

The display of modesty was used in some reports as a rhetorical strategy to enhance their authenticity.5 This frequently included confessions of negligence or of insufficient medical knowledge. In a report concerning ‘a monstrous human Foetus’, le Cat confessed that he ‘had not taken care enough to preserve the internal parts’ of the specimen under observation (Le Cat, 1767, p. 8). Similarly, John Still Winthrop concluded his account concerning ‘an extraordinary case of the Bones of a Foetus coming away by the Anus’ maintaining that he ‘hoped it will prove acceptable; tho’ not drawn up with that Accuracy with which a Physician might have done it’ (Winthrop, 1741–1745, p. 305).

Mentioning difficulties was often used as a rhetorical strategy to increase the credibility of reports of extraordinary phenomena. Most frequently, these difficulties concerned the dissection of the specimen under observation. For example, in the report concerning ‘two odd Births’, Jacomo Grandi lamented that he ‘could not dissect them as [he] would, because they were deliver’d to [him] to embalm, and the indigent Father of them, who look’d for gain, would not let [him] have them but for a great Sum of money’ (Grandi, 1670, p. 1188). Similarly, in a report concerning ‘a monstrous birth in Plymouth’, William Durston assured readers that he and other physicians present might have produced further observations, but ‘the time and the tumultuous concourse of people, as also the night, and likewise the Father’s importunity to hasten the Birth to the Grave, hindered [them]’ (Durston, 1671, p. 2098).

Extensive descriptions were also frequently used in the reports of extraordinary phenomena. They had an important bearing in establishing not only the authenticity

5 On the display of modesty as a mechanism of authentication, see Shapin (1984), pp. 494–497; Shapin and Schaffer (1985), pp. 65–69.

P. Fontes da Costa / Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. 33 (2002) 265–288

269

of the occurrence, but also its singularity. In the report concerning ‘a monstrous Foetus resembling a hooded Monkey’, Mr. William Gregory of Rochester excused his prolixity precisely by the fact that ‘the oddness of the case made [him] more particular in giving a true History of it’ (Gregory, 1739–1741, p. 767). The descriptions in the reports invariably included a profusion of circumstantial detail such as the date, place, name of parents and circumstances of birth and pregnancy, which increased their verisimilitude.

The use of a verbose style and of superfluity of detail was not a peculiar feature of reports of extraordinary phenomena of nature. It has been argued convincingly that this literary strategy was a common practice among the early members and correspondents of the Royal Society, and that it conferred veracity on the reports by providing the reader with a sense of ‘virtual witnessing’ (Shapin, 1984, p. 492; Shapin & Schaffer, 1985, pp. 60–65). However, the implausibility of extraordinary phenomena made literary strategies alone particularly insufficient in their authentication. The potential weaknesses of literary strategies for this purpose become more apparent with the rise of travel literature, in which the taste for the marvellous and the extraordinary had a prominent place.6 The problem was that the same factual style of the reports presented to the Royal Society was also used in fictional travel narratives to achieve similar effects of verisimilitude and authenticity. It is now accepted that imaginary voyages and travel literature (‘travel lies’) deceived readers by using several of the realistic effects of factual accounts, such as minute descriptions, names, dates and incidental details, as well as the exhibition of documentary evidence, the emphasis upon eyewitness experience and the displaying of ‘sincerity and modesty’ (Rennie, 1995, pp. 55–82). Indeed, several studies have emphasized the role of fact-oriented genres in the emergence of realistic fiction such as the genre of the imaginary voyage and of the novel (Watt, 1957; McKeon, 1988; Hunter, 1990).

It has also been suggested that the success of imaginary voyages and travel lies depended, to a great extent, on the popularity of original accounts of travel (Rennie, 1995, p. 68).

The difficult separation between the factual and the fictional extended also to historical discourse. Robert Mayer has recently argued that in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries the commitment to the reporting of matters of fact coexisted with a willingness to tolerate, or even actively employ, fictional elements in history when rhetorical, moral or practical considerations argued powerfully for their inclusion (Mayer, 1997, p. 11).7 Natural histories of counties, such as Robert Plot’s Natural history of Oxfordshire (1677), seem to be an example of this tendency.

This work contains material presented as factual and simultaneously acknowledged

6

On the rise of travel literature at the beginning of the eighteenth century, see Gove (1941); Adams (1962); Rennie (1995).

7 It is precisely upon its moral ends that Daniel Defoe justified the credibility of Robinson Crusoe in his preface to the Serious reflections of Robinson Crusoe (1720). Here he rejects accusations that ‘the Story is feign’d’ and claims that ‘though Allegorical, it is also Historical’. Such ‘allegorical history’, he says, was ‘designed and effectively turned for instructive and upright ends’ (quoted in Mayer, 1997, pp.

194–195).

270

P. Fontes da Costa / Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. 33 (2002) 265–288

by Plot to be at least arguably fictive. For example, in the chapter ‘Of Men and Women’, Plot mentioned several strange occurrences supposed to have happened at Woodstock’s Manor house in 1640, and yet confessed to not having ‘esteem for such kind of stories, many of them no question being performed by Combination’ (Plot, 1677, p. 206). Presumably, Plot and others like him included these kinds of dubious ‘facts’ in their works because of the potential pleasure usually associated with narratives of extraordinary phenomena.

3. The depiction of singularity Illustrations were used in almost one third of the reports concerning monstrous births and extraordinary pregnancies published in the Transactions, from the first edition until the election of the Committee of Papers in the middle of the eighteenth century. This is a significant proportion, especially if we take into account the high costs involved in the process of engraving and printing the copper plates of the Transactions. In 1751, these costs were of approximately five shillings and six pence for each copy, almost half the final price of each volume (12 shillings).8 The high costs were, however, justified, since the representation of singular features characteristic of extraordinary phenomena required great attention to detail.9 Both the original drawing and the medium used for its printing affected the final quality of the figures presented in the Philosophical Transactions (see Fig. 1).10 At the time, the best printing method for conveying visual information was engraving. As William Hunter remarked, ‘The art of engraving supplies us, upon many occasions, with what has been the great desideratum of the lovers of science, a universal language. Nay, it conveys clearer ideas of most natural objects, than words can express; makes stronger impressions upon the mind; and to every person conversant with the subject, gives an immediate comprehension of what it represents’ (Hunter, 1774, Preface). Accordingly, the chosen medium for printing the plates of the Philosophical Transactions was copper-plate engraving. However, this method obliged the printer to treat text and illustration as distinct entities. Therefore, in the bound editions of the Philosophical Transactions, illustrations are not inserted in the text but presented separately at the beginning of each number. Moreover, to minimize costs, figures of different subjects were often included in the same plate.11 Illustrations were also regularly exhibited at the meetings of the Society (see Fig.

8

Add. Ms. 6180, fol. 239, British Library.

On the specificity of representations of the pathological see Gilman (1995). On anatomical illustrations, see Choulant (1962), Roberts and Tomlinson (1992) and Cazort, Kornell, and Roberts (1996).

10 For a general guide to the different printing mediums, see Ivins (1988). On printing techniques in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, see Ivins (1989), pp. 71–92.

11 The printing method of woodcutting enabled the image to be inserted in the text and provided a cheaper medium for printing illustrations. However, it presented considerable limitations in conveying detail, besides being unable to show any information of texture. Woodcut illustrations were still in use in the eighteenth century, especially in ‘popular literature’ such as chapbooks.

9

P. Fontes da Costa / Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. 33 (2002) 265–288

271

Fig. 1. A Remarkable Conformation, or lusus naturae in a Child, engraving from Philosophical Transactions 42, 1742–1743, and original drawing (Courtesy Royal Society Library).

2). Some of these were presented together with the reports but others were shown independently, such as the picture of Mary Davis, who lived near Chester and had horns in her head.12 Likewise, at one meeting, James Douglas showed the isolated figure of a monstrous pig without mouth or nose.13 Sometimes, drawings and engravings of monstrous productions of nature were given as presents to the Society, such as Mr. George Edwards’ drawing of a small two-headed snake.14 On occasion, the Society explicitly arranged for illustrations to be made of the specimens exhibited at the meetings. For example, it ordered Henry Hunt, the then Curator of the Repository, the Society’s collection of natural and artificial curiosities, to take a figure of the bones of a child born without a brain and exhibited at a meeting.15 Visual representations were particularly valuable, due to the frequent unwillingness of parents or other relatives to give the specimen unless for a large sum of money and/or because of a commonly held belief regarding dissection: I offered a good Sum of Money to have all she was delivered of, but they would not let me have it. I still offered Money to have only Permission to dissect the 12

Royal Society’s Journal Books, Feb. 1, 1710.

Ibid., Nov. 12, 1713.

14 Ibid., Nov. 26, 1747.

15 Ibid., Mar. 22, 1699. On the history of the Repository, see Hunter (1985) and Fontes da Costa (2000), pp. 65–73.

13

272

P. Fontes da Costa / Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. 33 (2002) 265–288

Fig. 2. James Parsons, A Monstrous Female Foetus without a Head, with a Body of a Monstrous Bulk in Proportion to its Height Presented to the Royal Society on April 24, 1740, drawing (Courtesy Glasgow University Library).

Monster, but the impertinent Superstition of the parents deprived me of that Satisfaction . . . (De Superville, 1739–1741, p. 303) Potential difficulties in the preservation of specimens sometimes made observation unfeasible. For example, in a report concerning ‘a monstrous Child’, the author mentions problems in obtaining an accurate drawing due ‘to the touching of so many People that went to see the Creature’ (Krahe, 1684, p. 600). Problems of preservation were especially pertinent for specimens observed very far afield, such as the monstrous child born in Transylvania with ‘the Head figured like a sugar Loaf’ or the foetus with a monstrous head whose image carved in wood was sent to the Society

by Father Loupias, a Jesuit living in the East Indies.16 A model of this monstrous foetus by Mr. Frederick was also shown to the Society at a later meeting.17 Reliable illustrations contributed to the authentication of the reports by providing those who viewed them with a sense of virtual witnessing. The effects of verisimili16 17

Royal Society’s Journal Books, Nov. 16, 1709; Jan. 29, 1736.

Ibid., Feb. 19, 1736.

P. Fontes da Costa / Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. 33 (2002) 265–288

273

tude and realism were usually achieved through the use of a naturalistic style which included the depiction of detail and the use of conventions of shadowing (see Figs.

1–4).18 The use of a naturalistic style in the visual representations had a similar effect to the use of superfluity of detail in the textual narrative of the reports. However, the immediacy of visual representations gave the reader a stronger sense of virtual witnessing, making them a more powerful device of authentication. Indeed, several eighteenth-century anatomical authors, such as William Cheselden, William Hunter and Bernard Siegfried Albimus, agreed on the descriptive superiority of visual depiction (Kemp, 1993, pp. 104–121). However, the high cost of illustrations and other restrictions involved in their making meant that they were less widespread than literary strategies in the authentication of the accounts.

Often, medical illustrations included details extrinsic to the central purpose of the phenomena, such as picturesque landscapes in the background, which also contributed to the sense of realism of the images. In comparison, only in a very few cases did illustrations of extraordinary phenomena presented to the Society depict such elements. Instead, the specimens were usually represented separately and from differing perspectives (Fig. 3).

To increase their sense of realism and authenticity, representations were also often said to be life-sized or in proportion to life size. Such an example is the figure of the forehead-bone of a giant, described as ‘drawn half as big as the life’ (Molyneux, 1700–1701, p. 492) (see Fig. 4). Likewise, in the account of ‘a double Foetus’s of Calves’, the first figure is described as ‘about one fourth of the natural size’ (Le Cat, 1767, p. 498) (Fig. 3). Indeed, the rhetorical device ‘drawn from nature’ was often used by the authors of the reports in an explicit or implicit way. The author of ‘a very extraordinary birth that happened in the county of Staffordshire’, for example, emphasizes the fact that ‘The bigness and shape of this Preternatural Body will be easily conceived by our Figure which is made as exact and as large as the thing itself’ (Birch, 1683, p. 282).

There is, in general, little information about the circumstances in which the illustrations were done and by whom. However, a few reports do provide some indication of their artist and/or engraver. For example, Jacomo Grandi informs readers that he employed a painter to draw the figure of the ‘two odd births’ (Grandi, 1670, p. 1189).

In his ‘Essay on Giants’, Thomas Molyneux reveals that the sketches of the foreheadbone of a giant were done by his ‘ingenious Friend and relation Mr. Hugh Howards . . . from whence [the] . . . final copies were taken by the curious hand of a Lady Mrs. K. M.’ (Molyneux, 1700–1701, pp. 491–492). Another woman artist, Mrs. David, the daughter of the author, signed the drawings of the account of ‘a monstrous human Foetus . . .’ by le Cat (Fig. 1). Nevertheless, in a significant number of cases, the drawings seem to have been done by the authors of the reports. This is certainly true for the illustrations included in the reports of Dr. James Parsons, who was a skilled draughftsman (Fig. 2).

18 On the naturalistic style of representation, see Alpers (1983), especially Ch. 3; Kemp (1993); Daston and Galison (1992).

274

P. Fontes da Costa / Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. 33 (2002) 265–288

Fig. 3. A Double Foetus’s of Calves, Philosophical Transactions 45, 1748, engraving.

P. Fontes da Costa / Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. 33 (2002) 265–288

275

Fig. 4. The Forehead-Bone of a Giant, Philosophical Transactions 22, 1700–1701, engraving (1. the common shape and size of the forehead-bone of a man of an ordinary stature; 2. the gigantic bone; and 3. the inside of the same gigantic bone).

The majority of the illustrations were included in reports written by physicians or surgeons, who already embodied a special authority due to their medical knowledge and anatomical skills. In fact, a significant part of these illustrations was done when the bodies were also dissected. In these reports, there was less concern with providing the testimony of other witnesses, and visual representations had a crucial role not only in the description and process of authentication but also in the analysis of the phenomena under observation. The figures included in Molyneux’s ‘Essay on Giants’ (Fig. 4), for example, are used not merely as an illustration but as an aid to the very process of understanding ‘both of the agreement in shape and size, between this great Os Frontis, and the same Bone in a man of ordinary stature: and the better to apprehend what deductions may be made from hence, to determine the true height of the person to whom it formerly belonged’ (Molyneux, 1700–1701, p. 491). Another illustrative example is the report of ‘a double Foetus’s of Calves’ by le Cat, which consists almost entirely of figures accompanied by a short textual explanation (Le Cat, 1748) (Fig. 3). Therefore, in some of the reports of extraordinary phenomena of nature, especially the ones published in the eighteenth century, illustrations were not only used to encourage reading or to suggest to the reader a correct understanding of the text, or as devices of authentication, but they also had a crucial role in the minute description and interpretation of the observation.

The use of a naturalistic mode of representation aiming at a full depiction of the peculiarities of the observed phenomena made illustrations a powerful device in the authentication of extraordinary phenomena of nature. However, these same attributes can also be seen as a significant limitation in terms of the general understanding of monstrous births and other extraordinary phenomena of nature. In terms of interpretation, it was not sufficient to describe a singular specimen in greater or lesser detail as in the accounts presented to the Royal Society in the eighteenth century. It was also necessary to provide a strategy for visualizing similarities and differences

276

P. Fontes da Costa / Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. 33 (2002) 265–288

between the instance represented and other monstrous and regular bodies, even at the expense of authenticity.19

4. Testimony and the singular At least since the second half of the seventeenth century, the formal assessment of a report had been based on the external evidence of testimony and the internal evidence of the reported event, that is, the plausibility or probability of the event in conformity with our knowledge, observation or experience (Daston, 1988a, Chs. 4 and 6). By definition, extraordinary phenomena are implausible, which means they lack internal evidence. Therefore, their validation has been recognized to be crucially dependent upon a careful examination of testimony. John Locke stresses this point in his An essay concerning human understanding (1690): ‘The difficulty is when testimonies contradict common experience, and the reports of history and witnesses clash with the ordinary course of Nature or with one another: that is where diligence, attention, and exactness is required, to form a right judgment and to proportion the assent to the different evidence and probability of the thing, which rises and falls according to those two foundations of credibility, viz., common observation in like cases, and particular testimonies in that particular instance, favour or contradict it’ (Locke, 1995, p. 391).

Reports of extraordinary phenomena were also particularly suspect owing to their usual association with the vulgar’s traditionally credulous appetite for wonders. In his Pense´ es diverses sur la come`te (1683), Pierre Bayle argued that the probability of testimony derived not from the total number of witnesses, but only from the handful who had attentively examined the issue. He maintained that not only the integrity and intelligence of the witnesses but also the content of testimony should be weighed before giving assent, and that reports of events that violated the laws of nature needed to be handled with suspicion (Daston, 1988a, pp. 309–310).

This position was shared by most Enlightenment historians, who frequently warned against the ‘vulgar’ marvel-mongering tradition.20 The most radical expression of this view is presented in David Hume’s ‘Essay of Miracles’ included in his An enquiry concerning human understanding (1748). In this work, Hume stresses ‘the usual propensity of mankind towards the marvellous, and that, though this inclination may at intervals receive a check from sense and learning, it can never be thoroughly extirpated from human nature’ (Hume, 1999, p. 176). He argues that the evidence resulting from the testimony of the extraordinary reduces in value in proportion to its unusualness (Hume, 1999, pp. 171–172). Moreover, for Hume, ‘It

19

This was one of the attributes of Samuel Thomas Soemmerring’s new method of representing monsters, developed in the late eighteenth century. It was based on the representation of individual types, which showed characteristic properties, lumping together various kinds of deformation (Hagner, 1999, pp. 199–210).

20 On the Enlightenment and the anti-marvellous, see Daston and Park (1998), pp. 329–368.

P. Fontes da Costa / Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. 33 (2002) 265–288

277

is experience only, which gives authority to human testimony’ (Hume, 1999, pp.

183-184).

Hume’s reductive account of testimony differed, however, from that of most seventeenth and eighteenth century members of the Royal Society, who advocated knowledge as a social activity.21 As Joseph Glanvill argued, ‘Matters of fact well proved ought not to be denied, because we cannot conceive how they can be performed’ (quoted in Burns, 1981, p. 48). Indeed, until at least the second half of the eighteenth century, testimony was presented as the stamp of authenticity in most of the reports of extraordinary phenomena of nature read at the meetings of the Society or published in the Philosophical Transactions.

In conformity with the supremacy of testimony based on direct individual experience in terms of authentication, the majority of the reports consist of first-hand observations.22 There are still, however, a significant number communicated by authors based on second-hand experience, some of them also published in the Philosophical Transactions. Credible and reliable witnesses are even more crucial in the authentication of this type of report. Nevertheless, usually the authors mention only the social status, occupation and number of witnesses, but do not provide their name or any formal testimony. For example, in an account concerning ‘a monstrous Birth’, the Rev. William Derham stressed that he received it from ‘a very Intelligent Person and great well-wisher to our Royal Society’ (Derham, 1708–1709a, p. 308). In the account of ‘a double Child’, Thomas Percival noted that the observation had been given to him by a neighbouring surgeon: ‘I have not myself seen it, being confined to my room with the gout, but am well assured it is exact, having shewn it to many, who have, and who all agree it to be right’ (Percival, 1751–1752, pp. 360–362).

In like manner, most of the reports based on first-hand experience emphasize social status, occupation or number of witnesses without naming or affiliating them to their place of origin. For example, in an account of ‘a Child who had its Intestines, Mesentery, &c. in the cavity of the Thorax’ Sir Charles Holt described the witnesses as ‘two Learned Gentlemen and very good Anatomists’ (Holt, 1700–1701, p. 992).

Similarly, in a report ‘concerning the Bones of a dead Foetus taken out of the Uterus of a Cow’, Mr. Sherman merely noted that the fact may be proved by ‘witnesses of undoubted Credit’ (Sherman, 1708–1709, p. 451). In a report concerning ‘a Person who had a new set of Teeth after 80 years of age’, Fred. Slare emphasized that ‘[the person] was a Bedfordshire Gentlemen of an old English Family; and the case is well known’ (Slare, 1713, p. 273). Also, in an account of ‘a Humane Skeleton of an extraordinary size’, Dr. Simon Degg stressed the fact that it was attested to ‘by Several old People, who had likewise seen and measured the skeleton’ (Degg, 17271728, p. 364).

Other considerations, besides the status and occupation of the witnesses, were sometimes important for the assessment of testimony. The avowal of the mother 21 For a critical view of Hume’s account of testimony, see Burns (1981), pp. 176–246; Coady (1994), pp. 79–100.

22 On the supremacy of direct invidividual experience in the constitution of knowledge, see Shapin (1994), pp. 200–201.

278

P. Fontes da Costa / Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. 33 (2002) 265–288

concerning the circumstances of both pregnancy and labour was given in some reports. For example, in an account of ‘a monstrous double Birth in Lorrain’, Collin MacLaurin observed that ‘the Mother can assign nothing that had any relation to this Event, during the time of pregnancy’ (MacLaurin, 1722–1723, p. 347).23 The testimony of the parents was also important in affirming that none of the other births had a monstrous nature: ‘His Father, Michael Martimetti, a Tinker, told me, that this is the seventh Child his Wife Nunciada bore him. She was thirty years of Age at his Birth, and bore him two more since. All the rest were of the natural Shape’ (Cantwell, 1739–1741, p. 138).

In a smaller, but still significant, number of reports, the authors also provide an affidavit from the different witnesses to the case. For example, in an account of ‘a person who took a great quantity of Opium, without causing sleep’ the unnamed author maintained that it is ‘attested under the hands of her three Physicians and the Apothecary’ and provided their signatures (Philosophical Transactions, 1700–1701, p. 999). Likewise, in a report concerning ‘a Dwarf’, John Browning claimed that the phenomenon was not only attested to by himself, ‘who went to view and examine this very extraordinary and surprising, but melancholy subject’, but was also signed by the Vicar of Lantrissent, Glamorganshire, and eight gentlemen that ‘have seen the Youth, and are all of figure and fortune in the County of Glamorgan’ (Browning, 1751–1752, pp. 278–281). Similarly, a report of a very particular Naevus Maternus was accompanied by ‘the extract of several Letters and Certificates which were sent to his Majesty the King of Great Britain’ (Philosophical Transactions, 1724–1725, pp. 347–349).

The authenticity of the observation was particularly reinforced when the Royal Society received more than one account of the same occurrence. Such was the case of the ‘gigantic Boy at Willingham near Cambridge’, who, when first born, was no other than ‘what they commonly term, a lusty Boy; save that the Parts of Generation were remarkably large, and that the Lanugo first appear’d when he was near a Year old; which gave great Uneasiness to his Parents, who were very religious People’ (Dawkes, 1741–1745, pp. 253–254). The unusual occurrence was reported by three different correspondents of the Royal Society, the Rev. Almond, Minister of the Parish, Mr. Bayley and Mr. Tho. Dawkes, surgeon at Huntington.24 The letter from Mr. Dawkes alone provided ample testimony of the occurrence, including some certificates ‘of the truth of the fact’ signed by the Minister of the Parish, the nurses, the Midwife, the Church Wardens, Overseers, and about twenty four of the principal Inhabitants of the Parish’.25 Another practice used by the authors to enhance the authenticity of their observations was to mention other reports of similar instances already published in the Philosophical Transactions or in other works. In a ‘History of a Foetus born with a very imperfect Brain’, for example, Dr. James Johnston calls attention to the fact 23 The testimony of the mother was especially important for those authors who believed in the effect of the imagination of the mother on the conception of monsters. See Bouce´ (1987).

24 Royal Society’s Journal Books, Nov. 8, 1744; Jan. 10, 1745.

25 Ibid., Jan. 10, 1745.

P. Fontes da Costa / Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. 33 (2002) 265–288

279

that ‘many births similar to this in most circumstances are recorded in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, Nos. 99, 226, 228, 242’ (Johnston, 1767 pp.

118–131).

Reference to social status, occupation and number of witnesses was, therefore, the common element in the handling of testimony in the reports, a proceeding conformable with the legal criteria for the evaluation of testimony in the period and with John Locke’s maxims on the subject (Locke, 1995, p. 384).26 The reports of extraordinary phenomena presented at the Society support Shapin’s view on the relevance of social status in the management of testimony, but also suggest that it was not always the most important element in its assessment. Indeed, that gentlemen did not only trust other gentlemen is suggested by the considerable number of reports on monstrous births and other extraordinary phenomena communicated to the Society up until the second half of the eighteenth century by people who apparently were not gentlemen.

I would argue that, at least in the authentication of reports of extraordinary phenomena, the competence of the reporter and witnesses was often more important than their social status. It is true, however, that this trend became more significant in the eighteenth century.

Already in the seventeenth century, one way used to deal with the problem of assessing testimony of extraordinary phenomena was to demand expert testimony, independently of the social status of the reporter. Henry Oldenburg, for example, thanked Robert Boyle for sending him a detailed account of a monstrous birth, but requested additionally the ‘double attestation of the two physicians’.27 In this case Oldenburg considered the circumstantial details of the observation and the fact that it was communicated by a gentleman insufficient for the attestation of the report. In his Christian Virtuoso (1690), Robert Boyle maintained that ‘This is Justly as Generally granted; that the better qualify’d a Witness is, the stronger Assent his Testimony deserves; . . . For the two grand Requisites of a Witness, being the knowledge he has of the things he delivers, and his faithfulness in truly delivering what he knows’ (Boyle, 1690, p. 72).

The increased use and refinement of techniques of dissection in the eighteenth century contributed to a more important role for medical knowledge and anatomical expertise in the authentication of the reports.28 In this period, medical doctors were usually also gentlemen.29 However, their testimony was considered decisive in reports of monstrous births and similar phenomena, mainly because of their medical expertise and not because of their gentlemanly status. Indeed, the use of dissection is frequently emphasized in reports such as the account of a monstrous child by Sir Charles Holt: ‘I find at the house two Learned Gentlemen and very good Anatomists,

26

Locke argued that in evaluating the testimony of others, one should consider the number, integrity and skill of the witnesses, the design of the author, contrary testimonies and, where it is a testimony out of a book cited, the consistency of the parts and circumstances of the relation.

27 Oldenburg to Boyle, 3 Nov. 1664, in Boyle (1999–2000), Vol. 5, p. 318.

28 On the use of dissection in the eighteenth century, see King (1976).

29 Beside the landed aristocracy, certain professional groups were ascribed gentle status: these included the Established clergy, lawyers and physicians (Perkin, 1969, p. 24).

280

P. Fontes da Costa / Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. 33 (2002) 265–288

invited on the same occasion . . . This Relation seemed strange, but upon the dissection we found sufficient reason to believe the account’ (Holt, 1700–1701, pp. 992– 993). Likewise, in an account of ‘a Child taken out of the abdomen after having lain there for upwards of 16 years’, Dr. Myddleton emphasized that on the day of the mother’s death he opened the body in the presence of Dr. Nesbitt, Dr. Nicholls and Dr. Lawrence.30 Not only medical doctors, but also surgeons, were involved in the authentication of reports of extraordinary phenomena. For example, in a report concerning ‘an extrauterine conception’, Dr. Starkey Middelton informed readers that after the woman died, she was ‘opened by him in the presence of Dr. Bamber, Dr. Eaton and Mr. Jones, the surgeon’.31 Moreover, when two petrified kidneys were exhibited at one of the Society’s meetings, the surgeon William Cowper was asked to examine them and to write an account on the subject.32 The participation of surgeons in the assessment of specimens and accounts presented to the Royal Society shows the particular role of the competence of the reporter and witnesses in the management of testimony.

In opposition to physicians, and in spite of the increased social recognition of surgery in the eighteenth century, surgeons did not usually enjoy a gentlemanly status (Holmes, 1982, pp. 193–205; Jacyna, 1983, pp. 95–100; Lawrence, 1995, pp. 202– 205).33 Indeed, Susan Lawrence has asserted that ‘successful surgeons lived in the grey areas between respectability and gentlemanly rank’ (Lawrence, 1995, p. 203).

Social status was particularly inadequate for the validation of reports with contradictory testimonies. In his ‘Essay on Giants’, the physician Thomas Molyneux refered to ancient and modern accounts of giant bones and gigantic men as being ‘so extravagant in themselves, taken up by hearsay only, and the reports so ill attested, that they almost carry their own confutation, at least they will hardly gain credit with those that are wary, and of a cautious belief’ (Molyneux, 1700–1701, p.

488). He also gave an example of a fake giant recently exhibited in London and commented on the natural tendency of ‘the vulgar’ to believe in everything that is new or rare. However, he asserted confidently that ‘such like cheats, and how far these kind of Bones are false and genuine, may easily be made out by an Anatomist, skillful in the Osteology of Animals’ (Molyneux, 1700–1701, p. 490).

The authenticity of gigantic bones was also discussed by Hans Sloane in a paper about fossil teeth and the bones of elephants. To make the process of identification more accurate, Sloane suggested that anatomists should create ‘a sort of comparative Anatomy of Bones [with] what proportions the skeletons and Parts of Skeletons of Men and Animals bear to each other with Regard either to the size, or Figure or any other Quality’ (Sloane, 1727–1728, p. 498).

Anatomical expertise was also essential in exposing fakes, not only giant remains 30

Royal Society’s Journal Books, 17 Dec., 1747.

Ibid., Mar. 28, 1745.

32 Ibid., Oct. 23 and 30, Nov. 6, 1706.

33 Exceptions include William Hunter, who began his medical career as a surgeon’s apprentice. Roy Porter has argued that Willam Hunter’s upward social mobility was mainly the result of his personal entrepreneurship (Porter, 1985).

31

P. Fontes da Costa / Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. 33 (2002) 265–288

281

but also other fake specimens which were often publically exhibited in the period.34 At one of the meetings, for example, Dr. James Parsons informed the Royal Society that he had examined a mermaid on show in London which appeared clearly to him to be a monstrous human foetus.35 On the same occasion, Dr. Edward Milward presented a similar account of the subject.36 One of the functions of the Royal Society was to provide a body of expertise in the evaluation of some of the reports. Indeed, some of the reports based on secondhand experience were received with open criticism by the Society. Such is the case with the account of ‘a Child Crying in the Womb’ by the Rev. William Derham (Derham, 1708–1709b). First, it was seen as an impossibility in relation to medical knowledge of the life of the foetus in the womb. Second, it was remarked not to have been observed first-hand, and to have been attested to only by the mother and midwife (Derham, 1708–1709c, pp. 487–488). In response to the doubts raised by the Fellows, Derham wrote a second report of the case in which he also included the testimony of the father and of ‘most of the neighborhood’ (Derham, 1708–1709c, p. 489). However, multiple witnessing seems to have been, in this case, insufficient to counterbalance the witnesses’ lack of qualification in terms of both status and expertise. Nevertheless, in spite of their weakness as regards testimony, Derham’s accounts of the child crying in the womb were published in the Philosophical Transactions.

To compensate for the fact that it was not a first-hand observation, on one occasion an author actually sent along to the Society a witness to the case, together with his report. After the reading of the account concerning ‘a shepherd said to have lived for 18 years chiefly on water’, the preacher Mr. Charles Campbell attested that ‘he had seen the man himself, and had heard the truth of the particulars in th[e] account from the relation of his own Parents and that his stomach is so weak, that once upon taking the sacrament he was not able to bear it in his stomach’.37 The active role of the Royal Society in the evaluation of reports was not, however, restricted to second-hand accounts. When a letter from Mr. Thomas was read in which he related the case of a woman who had miscarried 13 children, Sloane noted that the secretions were no other than hydatides evacuated by the uterus, which were often mistaken for small embryos.38 At another meeting, Mr. Fisher, a fishmonger of Newgate Market, had permission to be present to show a ‘great curiosity’, a ‘plain 34 Advertisements of mermaids could still be found by the end of the eighteenth century. See Collectanea: or a Collection of Advertisements and Paragraphs from the Newspapers relating to various subjects (2 vols., n.d., British Library c. 103. K. 11), which includes the handbill of ‘mermaids taken from the sea in the year 1784’. This large collection of advertisements from eighteenth century newspapers was compiled by Daniel Lysons. The first volume concerns ‘Publick Exhibitions and Places of amusement’ and includes advertisements for the exhibition of giants and gigantic children, accounts of large men, dwarfs, giants and dwarfs exhibited together, masculine women, persons without arms and legs, monstrous births, strange formations and diseases, and extraordinary foreigners.

35 Royal Society’s Journal Books, Dec. 8, 1748.

36 Ibid., Dec. 8, 1748.

37 Ibid., Dec. 9, 1742.

38 Ibid., Oct. 24, 1717.

282

P. Fontes da Costa / Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. 33 (2002) 265–288

and distinct’ hermaphrodite lobster. Together with it, he showed a male and a female lobster so that by seeing the distinguishing parts and marks of each sex, it would be made clear that the hermaphrodite had, on the one half, the distinct and perfect parts of a male and, on the other half, those of a female. Dr. Frank Nicholls was then requested to dissect, examine and obtain an ‘exact’ draft of the hermaphrodite lobster. Three weeks later, he showed to the Society an anatomical preparation with the lobster parts peculiar to the different sexes laid open to view, and he communicated a detailed account of the case, which he was requested to publish in the Philosophical Transactions (Nicholls, 1729–1730). The hermaphrodite lobster was finally ‘steeped in three different spirits and carefully disposed in a glass . . . that it may remain in the Repository as undeniable Proof of so remarkable a Fact’ (Nicholls, 1729–1730, p. 294).

By enabling collective witnessing, exhibitions at the meetings of the Society had a substantial bearing on the authentication of extraordinary phenomena. The exhibition of specimens enabled not only the multiplication of witnesses but also the consolidation of a recognised forum in which Fellows with medical knowledge were invariably present. At the same time, it contributed to overcoming problems of accessibility in the observation of rare phenomena of nature. Moreover, it was indeed the ultimate way of assessing observations of great implausibility, such as the case of ‘a woman speaking without a tongue’, which was initially received with great scepticism by the Fellows and only established five years later, in 1742, when the woman was exhibited at the Royal Society.39 The possibility of collective witnessing of monstrous births and similar phenomena related to the generation of living beings presented one of their main differences and advantages in relation to other extraordinary phenomena, such as accounts of people living without food, which were not amenable to it.40 The presentation of material evidence at the meetings was, however, by no means obvious and uncontroversial. The possibility of deception was sometimes closely examined, as in the case of ‘a body of Feathers said to be a Mola or false conception of an Egg by an Hen’ presented to the Society at a meeting on March 28, 1744.41 This specimen had been sent by Dr. Leonard Stock from Middleburg, together with an account and some certificates relating to the phenomenon. It seemed, however, ‘very odd and unaccountable’ to the Society and was referred for examination to Henry Baker.42 At a later meeting, Baker presented a report on the case which was in agreement with Dr. Stock. Nevertheless, he also attempted to find out if it was possible to make a similar specimen artificially by cutting a piece from a duck in ‘a proper manner [which he] rowl’d up, and . . . produced to the Society’. This was then found to have a striking resemblance to the specimen sent by Dr. Stock.43 On a number of occasions, the Repository of the Royal Society played a significant 39 40 41 42 43

Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid.,

Feb. 11, 1742; Dec. 17, 1742.

Feb. 2, 1704; Apr. 19, 1704; Dec. 20, 1704.

Mar. 28, 1744. See also Ibid., Apr. 5, 1744.

Apr. 12, 1744.

Apr. 26, 1744.

P. Fontes da Costa / Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. 33 (2002) 265–288

283

role in the evaluation of material evidence. For example, when a tree supposedly found growing in the belly of a fish was exhibited to the Society, it was then compared with a coral specimen in the Repository and concluded in fact to be a coral.44 Specimens from Hans Sloane’s Museum were also frequently used for evaluating reports, and sometimes for comparison with specimens exhibited at the meetings.

For example, on the reading of an account concerning a petrified town in Africa by the Ambassador of Tripoli, Sloane exhibited some stones from his museum resembling olives, figs and bones which called into question the veracity of the account.45 The Royal Society accepted, therefore, reports of extraordinary phenomena with varying degrees of authority. At one extreme were second-hand reports which only provided the social status, occupation and/or number of witnesses of the observation.

At the other extreme were first-hand reports, backed by specimens exhibited at the meetings of the Royal Society. Close to the latter in terms of evidential status were first-hand accounts accompanied by affidavits of the witnesses. Moreover, the Society accepted reports by authors of varying social status, levels of education and competence. I have pointed out, however, that the competence of the reporter and witnesses was often more important than their social status in the assessment of reports of extraordinary phenomena. This was particularly the case in observations with contradictory testimonies and/or with a very low degree of intrinsic plausibility. In these cases, the social status did not necessarily guarantee the validation of the accounts.

5. The limits of validation In his study on the reception of reports of meteorite falls at the Paris Academy of Sciences in the late eighteenth century, Ron Westrum has noted the frequent rejection of those reports sent by persons ‘outside the scientific community’ (Westrum, 1982). He has associated this with the usual ‘resistance of the scientific community to social intelligence about anomalies’ (Westrum, 1982, p. 201). However, a less exclusive picture emerges in the study of reports of extraordinary phenomena at the Royal Society. Indeed, the ample spectrum of testimony used in the reports of extraordinary phenomena of nature shows that the ‘diligence, attention, and exactness’ desirable in the authentication of these kind of observations, as prescribed by Locke and others, did not always correspond to actual practice at the Society. Several factors are likely to have contributed to this situation. First, because of their rarity and, in certain cases, remoteness, extraordinary observations were difficult for the Society to dismiss even when not properly authenticated. Robert Boyle addressed this issue in his scheme for natural history:

44 45

Ibid., May 7, 1719; Jun. 18, 1719.

Ibid., Dec. 12, 1729.

284

P. Fontes da Costa / Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. 33 (2002) 265–288

many things must be taken upon trust in the History of Nature, as matters of fact extraordinary . . . as Monsters Prodigies &c. or long since expir’d, or else such as are not to be examin’d but in remote Countrys, or Places we cannot come to . . . (quoted in Carey, 1997, p. 289) Indeed, the widespread concern for the compilation of nature’s histories at the Society (Carey, 1997; Fontes da Costa, 2000, pp. 20–32) meant that the potential historical value of reports of extraordinary phenomena was, in general, acknowledged by the Fellows. Second, the codes of civility in operation at the Society were likely to make the rejection of certain reports difficult, independently of their evidential status. In this respect, Shapin’s views on the role of civil manners at the Royal Society are relevant in understanding why certain reports with dubious authority were not discussed at the meetings (Shapin, 1994, pp. 122–123). It is indeed significant that the reports which were openly criticized at the Society tended to be either reports communicated by unknown authors, such as Mr. Robinson’s relation of a man supposed to have had the hair of one side of his head turned white while lying on the ground, or reports communicated by active members, such as the Rev. William Derham’s previously mentioned account of the ‘child crying in the womb’ and his account of ‘a woman who had a child at 72’.46 Furthermore, the presentation of the reports mentioned not only the name of the author but also the name of the recipient of the letter, who was as a result often involved in a significant network of correspondence. The maintenance of the recipient’s place in this network frequently implied the fulfilment of certain favours to his correspondents. There were also a number of cases in which, together with the reports, the author sent valuable natural or artificial curiosities. In such cases, the presentation of the report was, in general, an accepted rule of civility for the Society.

The apparent absence of discussion upon the reading of some reports at the meetings does not, however, necessarily imply that they were vouched for by the Society.

Similarly, the publication of reports in the Philosophical Transactions did not necessarily mean that they were endorsed by the Society. It is true that the society recommended some reports of extraordinary phenomena be printed in the Philosophical Transactions, but only the First Secretaries were officially responsible for their selection and edition until the middle of the eighteenth century (Johns, 1998, pp. 444– 542; Kronick, 1990). However, the overall credibility of the reports did ultimately affect the reputation of the Society as a public body. This relationship was made particularly visible in eighteenth-century literary satires of the institution such as William King’s The transactioneer (1700) and John Hill’s A review of the works of the Royal Society of London (1751) (Rousseau & Haycock, 1999; Fontes da Costa, 2000, Ch. 4). By using passages from specific articles published in the Philosophical Transactions, King and Hill also exposed the special vulnerability of observations of extraordinary phenomena in terms of authentication. Some of the shortcomings involved in the overuse of circumstantial detail, and its close association with trivi-

46

Ibid., Oct. 27, 1703; Mar. 3, 1726.

P. Fontes da Costa / Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. 33 (2002) 265–288

285

ality, together with the lack of competence of the witnesses, were especially denounced in these two works. It is difficult to assess their exact influence on the policies of authentication in use at the Royal Society. However, they clearly highlighted problems in the mechanisms of credibility currently operating at the Society and the need for their reassessement.

The Society’s use of a wide range of strategies in the handling of testimony does not inevitably mean that it had a mainly neutral attitude towards observations of extraordinary phenomena. As I have pointed out before, the authenticity of some cases was amply debated at the meetings of the Society, especially by the end of the first half of the eighteenth century. It seems to have been at around this time that the Society took an increasingly sceptical attitude towards observations of extraordinary phenomena and that intrinsic plausibility finally emerged as a strong counterweight to testimony. The new attitude of the Society towards validation is also shown by its subsequent acknowledgement of the crucial role of expertise in the processes of authentication with the election of a Committee of Papers for the edition of the Philosophical Transactions in 1752. In the evaluation of the reports to be published in this periodical, the statutes of this Committee directly appealed to the Fellows’ expertise in particular branches of natural knowledge. This suggests that it was only around this time that the rules of civility and social authority definitively gave way to competence and professional authority in the authentication of knowledge at the Society.

Acknowledgements I would like particularly to thank Marina Frasca-Spada, Michael Hagner, Nick Jardine and Jim Secord for their very helpful discussions and suggestions.

References Adams, P. (1962). Travelers and travel liars. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Alpers, S. (1983). The art of describing: Dutch art in the seventeenth century. London: John Murray.

Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press.

Birbeck, C. (1700-1701). An Account of a Woman who Voided the Greatest Part of a Foetus by the Navel. Philosophical Transactions, 22, 1000–1003.

Birch, S. (1683). An Extraordinary Birth in Staffordshire with Reflections thereon by Edw. Tyson. Philosophical Transactions, 13, 281–284.

Bouce´ , P. -G. (1987). Imagination, pregnant women, and monsters in eighteenth-century England and France. In G. S. Rousseau & R. Porter (Eds.), Sexual underworlds of the Enlightenment (pp. 86–100).

Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Boyle, R. (1690). The Christian Virtuoso: Shewing that by Being Addicted to Experimental Philosophy, a Man is Rather Assisted than Indisposed, to be a Good Christian. London.

Boyle, R. (1999–2000). The works of Robert Boyle, 14 vols. (M. Hunter & E. B. Davis, Eds.). London: Pickering & Chatto.

Browning, J. (1751–1752). Extract of a Letter Concerning a Dwarf. Philosophical Transactions, 47, 278–281.

286

P. Fontes da Costa / Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. 33 (2002) 265–288

Burns, R. M. (1981). The great debate on miracles from Joseph Glanvill to David Hume. Lewisburgh: Bucknell University Press.

Cantwell, A. (1739–1741). Account of a Monstrous Boy. Philosophical Transactions, 41, 137–138.

Carey, D. (1997). Compiling Nature’s history: Travel narratives in the early Royal Society. Annals of Science, 54, 269–292.

Cazort, M., Kornell, M., & Roberts, K. B. (Eds.). (1996). The ingenious machine of nature: Four centuries of art and anatomy. Ottawa: National Gallery of Canada.

Choulant, L. (1962). History and bibliography of anatomical illustration. New York: Hafner Publishing Company.

Coady, C. A. J. (1994). Testimony: A philosophical study. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Daston, L. (1988a). Classical probability in the Enlightenment. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Daston, L. (1988b). Reviews on artifact and experiment: The factual sensibility. Isis, 79, 452–467.

Daston, L. (1991). Baconian facts, academic civility, and the prehistory of objectivity. Annals of Scholarship, 8, 337–363.

Daston, L., & Park, K. (1998). Wonders and the order of Nature. New York: Zone Books.

Daston, L., & Galison, P. (1992). The image of objectivity. Representations, 40, 81–128.

Davis, E. (1746–1747). The Case of a Young Child, at Houghton in Huntingdonshire, Born with All Its Bones Displaced. Philosophical Transactions, 44, 539–541.

Dawkes, T. (1741–1745). A Letter Concerning the same Child [the gigantic boy at Willingham near Cambridge]. Philosophical Transactions, 43, 251–254.

De Superville, D. (1739–1741). Some Reflections on Generation, and on Monsters, with a Description of some Particular Monsters. Philosophical Transactions, 41, 294–307.

Dear, P. (1985). ‘Totius in verba’: Rhetoric and authority in the early Royal Society. Isis, 76, 145–161.

Dear, P. (1990). Miracles, experiments and the ordinary course of nature. Isis, 81, 663–683.

Dear, P. (1991a). Discipline and experience: The mathematical way in the Scientific Revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Dear, P. (1991b). Introduction. In P. Dear (Ed.), The literary structure of scientific argument: Historical studies (pp. 1–16). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Degg, S. (1727–1728). An Account of an Human Skeleton of an extraordinary size, found in a Repository at Repton in Derby-shire, together with some examples of long life. Philosophical Transactions, 35, 363–365.

Derham, W. (1708–1709a). An Account of some Inundations, Monstrous Births, Appearances in the Heavens, and other Observables Received from Ireland. Philosophical Transactions, 26, 308–311.

Derham, W. (1708–1709b). Part of a Letter Giving an Account of a Child’s Crying in the Womb. Philosophical Transactions, 26, 458–486.

Derham, W. (1708–1709c). A Short Dissertation Concerning the Child Crying in the Womb. Philosophical Transactions, 26, 487–492.

Durston, W. (1671). A Narrative of a Monstrous Birth in Plymouth, Oct. 22. 1670; together with the Anatomical Observations, Taken Thereupon by a Doctor in Physick. Philosophical Transactions, 6, 2096–2099.

Fontes da Costa, P. (2000) The experience of the singular at the Royal Society of London, 1695–1752.

Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Cambridge.

Gilman, S. L. (1995). Picturing health and illness: Images of identity and difference. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Gove, P. B. (1941). The imaginary voyage in prose fiction. New York.

Grandi, J. (1670). Some Anatomical Observations, and Two Odd Births. Philosophical Transactions, 5, 1188–1189.

Gregory, W. (1739–1741). An Account of a Monstrous Foetus, Ressembling a Hooded Monkey. Philosophical Transactions, 41, 764–767.

Hagner, M. (1999). Enlightened Monsters. In W. Clark, J. Golinski, & S. Schaffer (Eds.), The Sciences in Enlightened Europe (pp. 175–217). Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.

Holmes, G. (1982). Augustan England: Professions, state and society, 1680–1730. London: George Allen & Unwin.

Holt, C. (1700-1701). A Child Who Had its Intestines, Mesentery, & c. in the Cavity of the Thorax, and a

P. Fontes da Costa / Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. 33 (2002) 265–288

287

Further Account of the Person Mentioned to Have Swallowed Stones, in No. 253 of these Transactions.

Philosophical Transactions, 22, 992–994.

Hume, D. (1999). An enquiry concerning human understanding. Oxford: Oxford University Press. First published 1748.

Hunter, J. P. (1990). Before novels: The culture context of eighteenth-century English fiction. New York & London: W. W. Norton & Company.

Hunter, M. (1985). The cabinet institutionalized: The Royal Society’s ‘Repository’ and its backgound. In O. Impey & A. Macgregor (Eds.), The origins of museums: The Cabinet of Curiosities in sixteenthand seventeenth-centurury Europe (pp. 159–168). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Hunter, W. (1774). The Anatomy of the Human Gravid Uterus Exhibited in Figures. Birmingham.

Ivins, W. M. (1988). How prints look: An illustrated guide. London: John Murray Publishers.

Ivins, W. M. (1989). Prints and visual communication. Cambridge, MA & London: The MIT Press.

Jacyna, L. S. (1983). Images of John Hunter in the nineteenth century. History of Science, 21, 85–108.

Johns, A. (1998). The nature of the book: Print and knowledge in the making. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.

Johnston, J. (1767). History of a Foetus Born with a Very Imperfect Brain; To which is Subjoined a Supplement of the Essay on the Use of Ganglions, Published in Philos. Trans. for 1764. Philosophical Transactions, 57, 118–131.

Kemp, M. (1993). ‘The mark of truth’: Looking and learning in some anatomical illustrations from the Renaissance and eighteenth century. In W. F. Bynum & R. Porter (Eds.), Medicine and the five senses (pp. 25–60). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

King, L. S. (1976). Theory and practice in eighteeth-century medicine. Studies in Voltaire and the Eighteenth Century, 153, 1201–1218.

Krahe, C. (1684). The Description of a Monstrous Child Born Friday the 29th of February 1684 at a Village Called Heisager, Distant about 4 English Miles from Hattersleben, a Town in South-Jutland, under the King of Denmark’s Dominion. Philosophical Transactions, 14, 599–600.

Kronick, D. A. (1990). Notes on the printing history of the early Philosophical Transactions. Libraries and Culture, 25, 243–268.

Lawrence, S. C. (1995). Anatomy and address: Creating medical gentlemen in eighteenth-century London.

In V. Nutton & R. Porter (Eds.), The history of medical education in Britain (pp. 199–228). Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Le Cat, C. N. (1748). An Account of Double Foetus’s of Calves. Philosophical Transactions, 45, 497–501.

Le Cat, C. N. (1767). A Monstrous Human Foetus, Having Neither Head, Heart, Lungs, Stomach, Spleen, Pancreas, Liver, nor Kidnies. Philosophical Transactions, 57, 1–20.

Lipton, P. (1998). The epistemology of testimony. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 29, 1–31.

Locke, J. (1995). An essay concerning human understanding. London & Vermont: The Everyman Library.

First publised 1689.

MacLaurin, C. (1722-1723). An Account of a Monstrous Double Birth in Lorrain. Philosophical Transactions, 32, 346–348.

Mayer, R. (1997). History and the early English novel: Matters of fact from Bacon to Defoe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

McKeon, M. (1988). The origins of the English novel. London: Radius.

Molyneux, T. (1700–1701). An Essay Concerning Giants Occasioned by some Further Remarks on the Large Human os frontis or Forehead-Bone Mentioned in Philosophical Transactions, No. 168. Philosophical Transactions, 22, 487–508.

Nicholls, F. (1729–1730). An Account of the Hermaphrodite Lobster Presented to the Royal Society on Thursday May the 7th by Mr. Fisher of Newgate Market, Examined and Dissected, Pursuant to an Order of the Society. Philosophical Transactions, 36, 290–294.

Percival, T. (1751–1752). An Account of a Double Child. Philosophical Transactions, 47, 360–362.

Perkin, H. (1969). The origins of modern English society. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Plot, R. (1677). The natural history of Oxfordshire. Oxford.

Porter, R. (1985). William Hunter, a surgeon and a gentleman. In W. F. Bynum & R. Porter (Eds.), William Hunter and the eighteenth-century medical world (pp. 7–34). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

288

P. Fontes da Costa / Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. 33 (2002) 265–288

Rennie, N. (1995). Far-fetched facts: The literature of travel and the idea of the South Seas. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Roberts, K. B., & Tomlinson, J. D. W. (1992). The fabric of the body: European traditions of anatomical illustration. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Rousseau, G. S., & Haycock, D. (1999). Voices calling for reform: The Royal Society in the mid-eighteenth century—Martin Folkes, John Hill and William Stukeley. History of Science, 37, 377–406.

Sargent, R. -M. (1989). Scientific, experimental and legal expertise: The way of experience in seventeenthcentury England. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 20, 19–45.

Serjeantson, R. W. (1999). Testimony and proof in early modern England. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 30, 195–235.

Shapin, S. (1984). Pump and circumstance: Robert Boyle’s literary technology. Social Studies of Science, 14, 481–520.

Shapin, S. (1994). A social history of truth: Civility and science in seventeenth-century England. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Shapin, S., & Schaffer, S. (1985). Leviathan and the air-pump: Hobbes, Boyle and the experimental life.

Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Shapiro, B. J. (1983). Probability and certainty in seventeenth-century England: A study of the relationships between natural science, religion, history, law, and literature. Princeton & New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Shapiro, B. J. (1994). The concept ‘fact’, legal origins and cultural diffusion. Albion, 26, 227–252.

Sherman (1708–1709). Letter Concerning the Bones of a Dead Foetus Taken Out of the Uterus of a Cow, and of a Callus that Supplied the Loss of Part of the os femoris. Philosophical Transactions, 26, 450–452.

Slare, F. (1713). An Account of a Person who had a new set of teeth after 80 years of age. Philosophical Transactions, 28, 273–274.

Sloane, H. (1727–1728). An Account of Elephants Teeth and Bones Found under Ground. Philosophical Transactions, 35, 457–471, 497–514.

Watt, I. (1957). The rise of the novel. London: Chatto & Windus.

Westrum, R. (1982). Science and social intelligence about anomalies: The case of meteorites. In H. M. Collins (Ed.), Sociology of scientific knowledge: A source book. Bath: Bath University Press.

Winthrop, J. S. (1741–1745). An Account of an Extraordinary Case of the Bones of a Foetus Coming Away by the Anus. Philosophical Transactions, 43, 304–305.