Academic Collaboration in the Early Enlightenment: Daniel Waterland (1683–1740) and his Cambridge Tyros

Natasha Bailey
{"title":"Academic Collaboration in the Early Enlightenment: Daniel Waterland (1683–1740) and his Cambridge Tyros","authors":"Natasha Bailey","doi":"10.1093/ehr/cead210","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n While early modern collaborative practices have long been associated with the natural sciences, humanistic scholarship has mostly been depicted, ever since Mark Pattison’s classic biography of Isaac Casaubon, as a lonely and even self-destructive affair. This article reconstructs a moment in English intellectual history when textual scholars did collaborate in a semi-professional manner. To this end, it examines the relationship between Daniel Waterland, Master of Magdalene College, Cambridge, and three ambitious young scholars who assumed roles within his enterprise: Edmund Law, Thomas Johnson and John Chapman. By showing how an unofficial research team was assembled over several years and directed to perform separate but related tasks with the stated goal of defending the Church of England, the article highlights the dynamics at work within a collective, subtly top-down model of scholarly interaction. Though a passing reference has been made in the historiography to ‘Waterland & Company’, this article is the first to delve into the nature and scope of this network and its sometimes contradictory objectives.","PeriodicalId":184998,"journal":{"name":"The English Historical Review","volume":"75 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The English Historical Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ehr/cead210","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

While early modern collaborative practices have long been associated with the natural sciences, humanistic scholarship has mostly been depicted, ever since Mark Pattison’s classic biography of Isaac Casaubon, as a lonely and even self-destructive affair. This article reconstructs a moment in English intellectual history when textual scholars did collaborate in a semi-professional manner. To this end, it examines the relationship between Daniel Waterland, Master of Magdalene College, Cambridge, and three ambitious young scholars who assumed roles within his enterprise: Edmund Law, Thomas Johnson and John Chapman. By showing how an unofficial research team was assembled over several years and directed to perform separate but related tasks with the stated goal of defending the Church of England, the article highlights the dynamics at work within a collective, subtly top-down model of scholarly interaction. Though a passing reference has been made in the historiography to ‘Waterland & Company’, this article is the first to delve into the nature and scope of this network and its sometimes contradictory objectives.
启蒙运动早期的学术合作:丹尼尔-沃特兰(1683-1740 年)和他的剑桥泰罗斯
近代早期的合作实践长期以来一直与自然科学联系在一起,而自马克-帕特森(Mark Pattison)的经典传记《艾萨克-卡萨本》(Isaac Casaubon)以来,人文学术研究大多被描述为孤独甚至自我毁灭的事情。本文重构了英国思想史上文本学者以半专业方式进行合作的时刻。为此,文章研究了剑桥大学马格达林学院院长丹尼尔-沃特兰与三位雄心勃勃的年轻学者之间的关系:他们是埃德蒙-劳(Edmund Law)、托马斯-约翰逊(Thomas Johnson)和约翰-查普曼(John Chapman)。通过展示一个非官方的研究团队是如何在数年时间内组建起来,并被指示执行各自独立但又相互关联的任务,以捍卫英格兰教会为既定目标,文章强调了在一个集体的、微妙的自上而下的学术互动模式中的动态变化。虽然史学界对 "沃特兰与公司 "只是一笔带过,但本文是首次深入研究这一网络的性质和范围及其有时相互矛盾的目标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信