the royal society and ireland william molyneux, f.r.s. (1656-1698)

The Royal Society and Ireland William Molyneux, F.R.S. (1656-1698)Author(s): K. Theodore HoppenSource: Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London, Vol. 18, No. 2 (Dec., 1963), pp. 125-135Published by: The Royal SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/531268 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 05:10

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The Royal Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Notes and Records ofthe Royal Society of London.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 05:10:00 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rsl

http://www.jstor.org/stable/531268?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


125

THE ROYAL SOCIETY AND IRELAND

WILLIAM MOLYNEUX, F.R.S. (I656-I698)

By K. THEODORE HOPPEN

Research Student, Trinity College, Cambridge

[Plate 18]

THE seventeenth century was not a period during which science can be said to have flourished in Ireland. Only in the last twenty years of the

century did that country give any response to the New Learning, a learning which was, in England, no longer regarded as new, in the sense of revolu-

tionary, and which was becoming accepted by the majority of thinking men. That there was any significant activity at all, in the field of science during these last two decades, was due, in the main, to William Molyneux.

Molyneux was born in Dublin in 1656, of a distinguished and well-to-do

family. He was sent to a Grammar school in that city, and in 1671 entered Trinity College, Dublin (I). After he had obtained his bachelor's degree he was sent by his father to London to take up the study of law at the Middle

Temple. His career at the university had been a successful one, and on going down he had been presented with a testimonial, 'Drawn up in the strongest Terms & in an Uncommon Form, Signifying the high opinion they had conceived of his Genius, the Probity of his Manner & the Remarkable

Progress he had made in letters' (2). Molyneux spent three years in London, but, as he puts it, 'my inclination to the Study of the law was not so strong as to make me master of the profession' (3).

While still an undergraduate Molyneux had 'conceived a Great Dislike to the Scholastick Learning then taught in that place; [the university] And

young as he was, he fell intirely into Lord Bacon's Methods & those prescribed by the Royal Society' (4). The young student spent most of his leisure hours reading the works of Bacon, Descartes, Gassendi, and Digby, as well as the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (5). There is no evidence to suggest that he attended any meetings of the Royal Society while he was studying at the Temple but, in I680, when he was in London seeking a cure for his blind wife, he met several Fellows of the Society, of whom he mentions Sir Charles Scarborough, Walter Needham, and Richard Lower (6). It was in the same year that he applied himself 'fully to mathematical learning' (7), and within twelve months had started a long correspondence

4



Plate 18

[Reproduced by kind permission of the National Library of Ireland

ENGRAVING OF WILLIAM MOLYNEUX

There are no surviving portraits of William Molyneux taken from life. This engraving is in stipple by James Henry Brocas of Dublin and is dated September I803. It is taken from a portrait of William Molyneux by Robert Home in the Theatre of Trinity College, Dublin.

[Facing page 125



T26

with the astronomer John Flamsteed, F.R.S. In common with most of the scientists of the time Molyneux was anything but a specialist. Astronomy, however, was to remain his chief interest, and his most famous scientific work dealt with the general subject of optics (8).

Ireland, in the early I68o's did not afford many facilities to the scientific worker, and this fact forms the subject for countless complaints by Molyneux and others. In September I68I he writes to Flamsteed, 'Living here in a

Kingdom barren of all things, but especially of the ingenious artificers, I am

wholly destitute of instruments, that I can rely upon' (9). Thirty years before Robert Boyle had judged Ireland to be a 'barbarous country, where chemical

spirits were so misunderstood and chemical instruments so unprocurable, that it was hard to have any Hermetic thoughts in it' (Io). Despite these difficulties

Molyneux persevered in his scientific studies and experiments. In 1682 he joined Moses Pitt in the latter's work on the English Atlas, managing the Irish section of this immense undertaking. The Atlas was to contain detailed

descriptions of the areas delineated, including information on climate, soils, minerals, ancient monuments, population, customs, and trade (i ). In order to gather such information, Molyneux had printed for him a sheet of queries, which was distributed around Ireland, soliciting replies concerning particular baronies and counties (12). Pitt's arrest in I685 ended the progress of this scheme, and Molyneux, who had collected 'an heap of rude materials' relating to some twenty counties, burnt all that he had written on the subject. He notes however that, 'I have still by me the rough papers of many other persons' (I 3).

In the Spring of the year 1683 Molyneux's younger brother Thomas left Ireland to study medicine at Leyden. He interrupted his journey in London, staying there for several weeks. While he was there Thomas attended several

meetings of the Royal Society and wrote about them to his brother in Ireland, giving a well observed description of such a meeting, and also character sketches of some of the Fellows. In a letter dated May 1683, he writes,

'The President Sir John Hoskins, sits in a chair at the upper end of the table, with a cushion before him. The Secretary Mr Aston, a very ingenious man, at the side on his left hand, he reads the heads, one after another, to be debated and discoursed of at the present meeting; as also whatever letters, experiments, or informations have been sent in since their last meeting, of all which as they are read, the fellows which sit round the room, spake their sentiments, and gave their opinions if they think fitting' (14).

William had asked "his brother to write him something of the characters of



127

some of the Fellows, and he does so in a letter written the month following. Mr Flamsteed is a 'free, affable, and Humble Man, not at all conceited or dogmatical', Dr Grew is 'a very civil, obliging person', while Robert Hooke, with his usual ill-luck, is described as being 'the most ill-natured, self-conceited man in the world, . . pretending to have had all other inventions when once discovered by their authors to the world' (15).

These letters probably suggested to William, that a similar scientific society might be founded at Dublin. In October 1683 therefore he began to look around for others who might be interested in such a project. 'I first', he writes. 'brought together about half a dozen, that met weekly in a private room of a coffee-house, on Cork Hill, merely to discourse of philosophy, mathematicks. and other polite literature, as things arose obiter, without any settled rules or forms' (I6). Soon, however, with the help of Sir William Petty and some others, the Dublin Philosophical Society was officially set up in January 1683/4, and was to meet regularly every Monday during university term. until April 1687. The new society, which appointed Molyneux its first Secretary (17), lost no time in opening a correspondence with the two scientific societies in England, the Royal Society and the Philosophical Society at Oxford. In February 1683/4, Molyneux wrote to Robert Plot at Oxford informing him of the existence of the new society at Dublin. 'We are'. he wrote, 'at present but weak and our foundation unsetled, so that we are uncertain whether our building will stand or fall, especially considering the like structure has never been offered at in this kingdom' (I8). Plot had. however, already received a letter from Dr Robert Huntington, Provost of Trinity College, Dublin, and a member of the Dublin Society, complaining of the severe difficulties a scientific group laboured under in Ireland.

Huntington, in somewhat purple prose, exclaims that, 'Here, Alas! We are destitute of all such Helps & Advantages; Scarce a place to put Or Heads in a Room big enough to hold us.... free us from Egyptian bondage, yt we man't be slaves' (I9). The Royal Society was very ready to correspond with Dublin, and Plot was instructed to tell Huntington that they 'willingly embrace the correspondence of the Society at Dublin; and had ordered their

Secretary to write to them in the manner proposed' (20). Francis Aston, Secretary to the Royal Society, therefore wrote to

Molyneux congratulating him on the establishment 'of a Society of Honour- able and Learned persons; for the Improvement of natural knowledge', and

assuring him of all the help the Royal Society could give (21). This was the

beginning of a long and fruitful dialogue between the two countries, and without the help of the societies in England, that at Dublin could hardly have



128

survived for very long. William Molyneux was a well-to-do gentleman and was able to devote all his time to the business of the Dublin Society, being among its most active members. In the period October 1683 to November I686 he read, in all, twenty-five papers to the Society dealing with a wide

variety of subjects, from 'Why heavy bodies dissolved swim in menstrua

specifically lighter than themselves', to 'On comparing the weather at Oxford and Dublin'.

The Dublin Society did not publish a journal in which to print the most

interesting of the papers read at its meetings, so that its members com- municated their findings through the Philosophical Transactions. There are in all thirteen articles by Molyneux in the Phil. Trans. and many more by other members of the Dublin Society. One of the papers by Molyneux deals with a phenomenon that was a source of continual fascination for many contemporary English scientists, the supposed petrifying qualities of Lough Neagh in Ulster (22). Molyneux adopts a mildly sceptical attitude about the

powers of the lough, although he does not dismiss them altogether. This article was written in response to some questions from the Oxford Society, which had discussed the problem at its meeting of 26 March I684 (23). Molyneux thought highly of the importance of the Phil. Trans. in the further- ance of scientific communication and discussion. Writing to Flamsteed in April 1683 he rejoices that their publication is to be resumed, for 'Truly we Forreiners suffered much for want of them, for we were thereby kept Ignorant of What was doing abroad in the Ingenious World... And moreover there are many Pretty Quaint Notions that some Persons may have, of which

they would think it Impertinent to write a Book and yet are willing to Publish Abroad, and for this designe no thing can be more convenient than the Transactions' (24). Molyneux did however have some 'Pretty Quaint Notions', about which he was willing to write a book. His first publication had been a translation of Six Metaphysical Meditations by Descartes in I680, to which he contributed a preface (25). In this he states that, 'Here, what was commonly asserted without proof, is not only proved but mathematically demonstrated, viz. That God is the Fountain and Original of Truth.'

Molyneux may be numbered among those, who fervently believed that the study of natural philosophy, was an aid and a prop to religion, and that it would afford 'occasion of admiring and adoring the Divine Wisdom' (26). This religious approach to science was fairly common at the time, and was often a defensive mechanism against those who attacked natural philosophy for undermining 'sound religion'. Sometimes, however, it led to rather

strange exercises, as when the Reverend John Keogh, also a member of the



I29

Dublin Society, demonstrated mathematically, 'what dependence the several degrees of beings have on God Almighty, from the highest Angel to the lowest insect'. Isaac Newton is said to have approved 'mighty well' of this production (27).

After I680 Molyneux did not publish any books for six years, being kept busy, at first with the English Atlas, and later by the affairs of the Dublin Society. In May I685 he received a grant of I0oo from the Irish Govern- ment to enable him to view and make draughts of the fortresses in Flanders, as part of his duties as Chief Engineer and Surveyor-General of the King's Buildings and Works in Ireland, to which post he had been appointed the year before (28). He broke off his journey at London where he had Richard Whitehead, the instrument maker, construct a telescopic dial of his own design. This contrivance was the subject of his next book, entitled Sciothericum Telescopicum. In the Epistle Dedicatory to the Earl of Clarendon, Molyneux gives the first clear and reasoned exposition of his general attitude towards science, as represented by the New Learning. There are no doubts in his unqualified admiration for that kind of science propagated by the Royal Society, and in his equally trenchant attack on the 'ancient Notions of Philosophy'. This was but 'verbose empty stuff' consisting only of 'vain Distinctions and idle Evasions' (29). 'True Philosophy', as he terms it, is worthwhile, 'as far as it tends to illustrate the creation, and set forth the infinite power of the Creator; as also to increase the conveniences of human life, and render our passage in this world more easy' (30). This stress on the utilitarian aspect of science was widespread at the time among men who were frequently accused of wasting their time in idle speculation. Molyneux believes firmly in the importance of experiment, which, is 'a matter of Fact, and strikes the Senses so forcibly, that there is no opposing it' (3 1). The actual invention described in the book never became very popular, although a synopsis of the main points of interest was printed in the Phil. Trans. (32).

On 3 February 1685/6 Molyneux was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society (33), and indeed of the thirty-seven persons ever associated with the Dublin Society, fourteen were, or were to become, Fellows. He had returned from Flanders in September I685 and was once again taking full part in the activities of the Dublin Society which by then had acquired permanent quarters in a room above an apothecary's shop, as well as an herbal garden and a laboratory (34).

The last few years of the I68o's were, in Ireland, an unsettled time and many Protestants, remembering the rebellion of 1641, began to fear for their



130

lives under the government of Tyrconnell and James II. The Dublin Society was one of the first casualties of this uncertainty and its last recorded meeting was held on ii April I687. Even before this date there are several notes in the Society's minutes recording the fewness of the members attending meetings. In March 1687 St George Ashe (who had also been Secretary to the Society) wrote to Oxford about the unsettledness of the meetings, 'caused by the distracted fears and apprehensions of most of this Kingdome'. He fears that, 'while there is such a dismall prospect of impendent evills, philosophy must not much expect to thrive among us' (35). The death of Sir William Petty in the same year, must also have had its effect on the fortunes of the Society, for he had always been one of its most active members. In I689 Molyneux, together with his wife and child, fled to England, and were to stay at Chester for the next fifteen months. They remained at Chester because, like many other Irish refugees, they had hopes of being able to return home at any moment. Thomas Molyneux was with them, staying, because he was 'very unwilling to leave my only brother and several other nigh Relations' (36). The younger brother was later to become one of the wealthiest and most successful of Dublin doctors.

While at Chester, William wrote his book Dioptrica Nova, and 'This work mett with the best Reception & has been allowed by all Judges to put that Subject in the Clearest light' (3 7). The book greatly benefited by the revisions it had undergone at the hands of Edmond Halley, who had also allowed his celebrated theorem for finding the foci of optic glasses to be printed in it as an appendix. The publication, however, ended the friendship between Molyneux and Flamsteed that had existed since I68I, because the latter took offence over the printing of some solutions he had postulated as answers to the tenth, sixteenth, and eighteenth propositions, after, rather than before, those proposed by the author himself. Some years later Molyneux wrote, rather sourly, that he had at last, 'slighted the friendship of a man of so much ill- nature and irreligion how ingenious and learned whatever' (38). Only eleven years previously, Thomas Molyneux had thought Flamsteed 'free, affable, and Humble' (see page 127).

William Molyneux had returned to Dublin in I690 and as one long friendship was ending because of a book another was about to start for the same reason. In the Epistle Dedicatory to the Dioptrica Nova, Molyneux had written, 'to none do we owe, for a greater advancement in this part of philosophy [logic] than to the incomperable Mr Locke, who, in his Essay of Human Understanding, hath rectified more mistakes ... than are to be met with in all the volumes of the ancients'. He had left a copy of the book in London,



13

to be given to Locke when he was in town. The philosopher was flattered, and at once wrote a letter thanking Molyneux for his praise and his gift. 'Sir, you have made great advances of friendship towards me, and you see they are not lost upon me' (39). This was the first letter in what was to become a frequent and lengthy correspondence between the two Fellows of the Royal Society, ending only with the death of Molyneux in 1698. It was in a letter to Locke that Molyneux first mentioned the celebrated problem that was to become associated with his name and was to provide endless speculative possibilities for the philosophers of the eighteenth century (40). This problem was, to put it shortly, 'Assume a man born blind, who while blind has learned to distinguish a globe from a cube. Would he upon having his sight restored, be able to distinguish the globe from the cube before he had touched them?' (4I). Superficially simple, the problem is of great theoretical interest, and by the answers given to it by later thinkers, can be used as a rough guide to their general philosophical attitudes. Those that replied in the affirmative may generally be classed as 'rationalists', while those who replied in the negative may be called 'empiricists' or 'sensationalists'. It occupied, among others, the thoughts of such eminent thinkers as Berkeley and Leibniz, who both decided in the negative but, within the context of this answer, differed widely.

After the Revolution, Molyneux was once again involved in the work of the Dublin Society, which had been revived in 1693. One of the first actions of the Society was to renew its correspondence with the Royal Society in London. The new Secretary, Dr Owen Lloyd, a Fellow of Trinity College, Dublin, wrote, in June 1693, that they were as yet not fully organized, 'and therefore cannot hope to make any suitable reture for what you send us, but must have a little time to settle after the disorder the warr has put everything into here' (42). Molyneux did not however play so important a role in the affairs of the revived Society as he had done in its predecessor. During the next few years he was much occupied with political matters, having been elected to sit for Dublin University in the Parliament called to meet at Dublin in 1692. In the Winter of that year he was appointed one of the Commissioners of the Forfeitures in Ireland, at a salary of L400 a year, but however declined this highly paid post, 'chiefly on account of the ill reputation of the other commissioners named' (43). At this time Molyneux seems to have occupied a central position in Irish politics, and his appointment as a commissioner would indicate that he had played a neutral role in the Commons' discussion on their right to originate money bills.

From the correspondence with Locke, it is evident that he was, during these years, investigating the effect that recent legislation in the English



132

Parliament was having on the Irish linen and wool industries. Despite these

political preoccupations, he did not lose interest in scientific affairs, although in a letter of 1697 he complains to Hans Sloane, that,

'. . . this Place affords little Curiositys, and my troublesom Circum- stances afford little leisure to prosecute them [his studies] as I would. However, now and then I can steal an Hour or two; and when I can, tis dedicated to your service. You make me blush when you Introduce the Commands of the Royal Society to me with an Apology. I am so far in their Dett, that paying so little of it puts me only in mind of the vast Arrear' (44).

In order to make up some of this debt Molyneux sent the Society a joint from the Giant's Causeway, a place which fascinated many scientists of the

day. Molyneux was extremely proud of being a Fellow of the Royal Society, and his Dioptrica Nova is dedicated 'To The Illustrious The Royal Society'. In that dedication he expresses his great admiration for the 'excellent Method of Experimental Philosophy, which now, by your Example and Incourage- ment, does so universally prevail'. The Royal Society, he declares, deserves

every praise, for having 'dissapated these dark Mists ... which like a Leprosie had quite over-run the whole Body of Philosophy'. Several copies of the book were presented, by the author, to various Fellows of the Society, including Flamsteed, Halley, Newton, Locke, Robert Plot, Wallis, Boyle, and Sir John Hoskins (45).

Molyneux's study of Irish economic problems led him to write the book

by which he is perhaps best remembered. The Case of Ireland's being Bound by Acts of Parliament in England Stated was published in 1698. In this book he

attempts to prove that Ireland is a separate kindgom, and not a conquered country, and that if the English Parliament was to have the right to legislate for Ireland, Irish members must sit at Westminster. Molyneux had admitted to Locke, that it was a 'nice subject', but, he writes, 'I have treated it with that caution and submission, that I cannot justly give any offence' (46). In this he was much mistaken, for the English House of Commons voted that 'the book was of dangerous tendency to the Crown and people of England, by denying the authority of the King and Parliament of England to bind the kingdom and people of Ireland' (47). Opinion in Ireland was divided and, even among the ranks of the Dublin Society, there were supporters and opponents of

Molyneux's view. William King, Bishop of Derry, 'a sharp ready man in politicks' (48), and a member of the Dublin Society, could not 'see why Mr

Mollyneux's (sic) booke being written by a private gentleman, without

consulting any body yt I can find, can Justify a publick resolution to the



133

detriment of a kingdom' (49). Sir Richard Cox, another member of the

Society, however, thought 'the doctrine was false, and unseasonably published, and would have ill consequences' (50). In reality only a pamphlet, its long-term influence is difficult to overestimate, 'for it has formed the

armoury from which successive generations of advocates of Irish self-government ... have taken down and polished their weapons of war' (5I).

When the Case of Ireland was published, Molyneux, then but forty-two years old, had only a few months more to live. He had never been a healthy man and, even as a child, had been tormented by his being 'very subject, by fits, to a pain in the region of the left kidney' (52). His wife had died in 1691, and since then he had lavished all his affection on his only child, Samuel.

Among the letters to Locke there are several asking advice as to how best to educate the boy. Molyneux used Locke's Some Thought Concerning Education almost as a bible in this field. In the July of I698 he went to England for the last time to meet Locke, whom he had never seen. The two men spent several weeks together, and the Irishman thought it one of the happiest events of his life. He returned to Dublin in September, in October he died.

In a short life, Molyneux had undertaken a staggering amount of work. As a scientist his versatility is astounding, even in an age when all scientists had a wide range of interests. He wrote, with equal authority, on the circulation of the blood in a water-newt (53), on a new hygroscope invented by him (54), or on the method of navigation on the Rhine (55). He opened Irish science to an international scene, and a country, where 'not long since a mathematician and a conjurer were aequivalent terms' (56), began the slow process of

becoming involved in modem thought. Like so many other Fellows of the

Royal Society, he was deeply involved in the political affairs of his time and, being relieved of the necessity of earning a living, could devote all his time to his myriad interests. He was no bigot, and the example offered by the Royal Society in religious toleration probably influenced him towards the same view. Educated Catholic laymen were few in number in the late seventeenth

century Ireland, but the Dublin Society did include one among its member-

ship. In politics, Molyneux was one of the founders of the attitude, later to be held by William King, Berkeley, and Swift. Locke's words, on hearing of his death, are perhaps a fitting epitaph. Writing to Thomas Molyneux, he declares,

'Whatever inclination I may have to alleviate your sorrow, I have too

great a share in the loss, and am too sensibly touched with it myself, to be in a condition to discourse you on this subject, or doe anything but

mingle in tears with yours. I have lost in your brother, not only an

ingenious and learned acquaintance, that all the world esteemed, but an



134

intimate and sincere friend, whom I truly loved, and by whom I was

truly loved; and what a losse that is those only can be sensible who know how valuable and how scarce a true friend is, and how far to be preferred to all other sorts of treasure '(57).

NOTES

(I) British Museum Add. MS. 4223 f. 34. (2) B.M. Add. MS. 4223 f. 34. (3) Capel Molyneux, An account of the family and descendants of Sir Thomas Molyneux kt.

Chancellor of the Exchequer in Ireland to Queen Elizabeth. Evesham 1820. p. 55. pp. 51-78 of this book contain an autobiography of William Molyneux, written in 1694.

(4) B.M. Add. MS. 4223 f. 34v.

(5) An account of the family, p. 60.

(6) An account of the family, p. 59. (7) An account of the family, p. 60.

(8) Dioptrica Nova, a treatise of dioptricks in two parts, wherein the various effects and appearances of spherick glasses both convex and concave, single and combined, in telescopes and microscopes ivith their usefulness in many concerns of humane life. London 1692. A second edition

appeared in I709.

(9) Molyneux to Flamsteed, 3 April 1683. Southampton Civic Centre Archives MS. D/M I/r. A collection of loose letters.

(Io) Dictionary of National Biography, under Robert Boyle. (iI) E. G. R. Taylor, 'The English Atlas of Moses Pitt I680-83', in Geog. J., 95, 294-5 (I940). (12) Only one copy of these Queries survives in Bodleian Library MS. Ashmole I820a f. 221.

It is reproduced in K. T. Hoppen, 'Queries for a seventeenth century natural history of Ireland', in The Irish Book, 2, pp. 6o-6I (I963).

(13) An account of the family, p. 6i. Many of these are preserved among the Molyneux Papers at Trinity College Dublin.

(14) Thomas to William Molyneux, 26 May 1683, in Dublin Univ. Mag., I8, 318 (1841). (I5) Thomas to William Molyneux, 9 June 1683, in Dublin Univ. Mag., I8, 320 (184I). (I6) An account of the family, p. 64. (I7) B.M. Add. MS. 4811 f. i60. This is the Minute Book of the Dublin Philosophical Society. (18) Molyneux to Plot, 5 February 1683/4, in R. T. Gunther, Early science in Oxford, 12

(Oxford I939), p. I3I.

(I9) Huntington to Plot, 18 December 1683, Royal Society, Early Letters H.3.72.

(20) T. Birch, The history of'the Royal Society of Londonfor Improving of Natural Knowledgefrom its first rise, London I756-57. 4, P. 249.

(21) Aston to Molyneux, 26 February 1683/4, Trinity College Dublin MS. 1.4.18. no. 34(1).

(22) Phil. Trans., 14, 552-4 (1684). (23) R. T. Gunther, Early Science in Oxford, 4 (I925), p. 52.

(24) Molyneux to Flamsteed, 3 April 1683, Southampton MS. D/M I/I. (25) Six Metaphysical Meditations wherein it is Proved there is a God And that Mans Mind is really

distinctfronm his Body ... ivith a short Account of Des-Cartes Life, London I680. (26) Dioptrica Nova, p. I95.

(27) D.N.B. under John Keogh.



135

(28) An account of the family, p. 64, and R. Lascelles, Liber Munerum publicorum Hiberniae

(London 1852), I, pt. 2, p. io6.

(29) Sciothericum Telescopicum; or a new contrivance of adapting a telescope to an horizontal dial . . . With proper tables requisite thereto, Dublin i686. Quotations are from the Epistle, which is not paginated.

(30) An account of thefamily, p. 67. (31) Sciothericum Telescopicum, the Epistle. (32) Phil. Trans., i6, 213-I6 (I686). (33) The Record of the Royal Society (4th ed London 1940), p. 485. (34) William to Thomas Molyneux, o1 May 1684, in Dublin Univ. Mag., I8, 481 (1841). (35) Ashe to Benbrigge, 26 March 1687, in Early science in Oxford, 12, p. 201.

(36) Thomas Molyneux to Edward Lhwyd, 27July I689. Bodl. MS. Ashmole 18i6 f. 359. (37) B.M. Add. MS. 4223 f. 36.

(38) An account of thefamily, p. 76. (39) The works ofJohn Locke (IIth ed. London 18I2), 9, p. 290.

(40) Molyneux to Locke, 2 March 1692/3, The works of John Locke, 9, p. 311. (41) This version of the Problem is taken from J. W. Davis, 'The Molyneux Problem', in

J. Hist. Ideas, 21, p. 392 (I960). (42) Lloyd to Richard Waller, 21 June 1693, R.S. Early Letters L.5.I24. (43) An account of the family, p. 73.

(44) Molyneux to Sloane, 9 November 1697. R.S. Early Letters. M.I.99. (45) This list of copies presented is on the verso of the flyleaf of the copy of the ISt edition,

in the British Museum.

(46) Molyneux to Locke, I9 April 1698, in The works ofJohn Locke (IIth ed. London 1812), 9, P. 455.

(47) R. H. Murray, Revolutionary Ireland and its settlement, London 1911, p. 328. (48) The Diary ofJohn Evelyn, ed. E. S. de Beer, Oxford 1955, 5, p. 597. Entry for 4June 1705. (49) King to the Bishop of Killaloe, 7 June 1698, Trinity College, Dublin. King Correspon-

dence MS. N.3.I, p. 241. (50) Sir R. Cox to , 28 October 1699, H.M.C. I4th Report, Appendix 2, (1894),

p. 609. (Portland MSS.) (5I) R. H. Murray, Revolutionary Ireland and its settlement, London, 1911, p. 327. (52) An account of thefamily, p. 53. (53) Molyneux to Grew, 7 June 1684, Birch, History of the Royal Society, 4, pp. 305-6. (54) Phil. Trans., 15, 1032-5 (1685). (55) B.M. Add. MS. 481I f. 124 v.

(56) 'St George Ashe's Speech to Lord Clarendon', 25 January 1685/6. T.C.D. MS. 1.4.17. no. 2.

(57) Locke to Thomas Molyneux, 27 October I698, in Dublin Univ. Mag., I8, p. 751.



the royal society and ireland william molyneux, f.r.s. (1656-1698)

Documents