Notes
Notes Introduction 1. Merton, “Über die vielfältigen Wurzeln”; Whitney, Paradise Restored. 2. Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics 6.4–5, 1140a–1141a. See also Dunne, Back to the Rough Ground, for a discussion of the importance of the categories in Aristotle and in modern philosophy; and Habermas, Theory and Practice. 3. For the contested role of experiment in the seventeenth century, see esp. Dear, Discipline and Experience; and Shapin and Schaffer, Leviathan and the Air-Pump. 4. Alasdair MacIntyre’s “disquieting suggestion” with regard to moral philosophy is relevant . MacIntyre suggests that whole areas of moral philosophy have been obliterated because history itself as a discipline was created out of the fragments of the breakdown of those philosophies. MacIntyre, After Virtue, 1–5; MacIntyre, Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry. 5. For discussions of changing disciplinary boundaries, see Kelley, History and the Disciplines ; and Greenblatt and Gunn, Redrawing the Boundaries. For Skinner’s work, see esp. Tully, Meaning and Context. 6. Baldwin, “Snakestone Experiments”; Biagioli, Galileo, Courtier; Findlen, “Controlling the Experiment”; Hannaway, Chemists and the Word; Hannaway, “Laboratory Design and the Aim of Science”; Hull, Science as a Process; Shackelford, “Tycho Brahe”; Shapin, “House of Experiment”; Shapin and Schaffer, Leviathan and the Air-Pump. 7. Williams, Keywords; Skinner, “Language and Social Change.” 8. Merton, Sociology of Science, 273–77; Price, Science since Babylon, 117–35. Ernan McMullin reiterated the thesis of the openness of science and the secrecy of technology in McMullin, “Openness and Secrecy in Science.” 9. For a cogent discussion of the ancient notion of techneμ, see Ferrari and Vegetti, “Science, Technology, and Medicine,” esp. 200–202. For an example from architecture, see Vitruvius, De architectura 1.1.1; Vitruvius said that the work of the architect comes from fabrica (construction) and ratiocinatio (reason). 10. For social constructivism, see Golinski, Making Natural Knowledge; and see Hull, “Openness and Secrecy in Science,” and Hull, Science as a Process. Both Findlen, “Controlling the Experiment”; and Biagioli, Galileo, Courtier, associate openness with display connected with patronage. See also Shapin, “House of Experiment.” 11. Long, “Openness and Empiricism”; Long, “Openness of Knowledge.” 12. Bok, Secrets, 4–14. 13. Paolo Rossi and William Eamon point out that in early modern Italy the metaphor of the venatio, or the hunt, was frequently used with reference to the “secrets of nature.” Rossi, Philosophy, Technology, and the Arts, 42; Eamon, “Court, Academy, and Printing House,” 25–28; Eamon, Science and the Secrets of Nature, 11. 14. See, e.g., Minnis, Medieval Theory of Authorship. 15. Quint, Origin and Originality, esp. 1–30; Dunn, Pretexts of Authority; Loewenstein, “Script in the Marketplace”; Kernan, Printing Technology, Letters, and Samuel Johnson. 16. Barthes, “Death of the Author”; Foucault, “What Is an Author?” For a useful discussion of the postmodern view of the author, see Rosenau, Post-modernism and the Social Sciences, 25–41. For discussions of the “death” of the author, see esp. Kernan, Death of Literature. As Seán Burke remarks, Roland Barthes “does not so much destroy the Author-God, but participates in its construction. He must create a king worthy of the killing” (Burke, Death and Return of the Author, 26). 17. Scholars who posit the eighteenth-century development of modern authorship and its connection to copyright include Hesse, “Enlightenment Epistemology”; Nesbit, “What Was an Author?”; Rose, “Author as Proprietor”; Rose, Authors and Owners; and Woodmansee, “Genius and the Copyright.” Dissenters from the view that connects authorship and copyright include Ginsburg, “Tale of Two Copyrights”; Saunders, Authorship and Copyright; and Saunders and Hunter, “Lessons from the ‘Literatory.’” 18. Hathaway, “Compilatio.” For an example of alchemical pseudoauthorship, see Newman, “Summa Perfectionis” of Pseudo-Geber, 57–108, discussed in detail in chapter 5. 19. Biagioli, Galileo, Courtier, esp. 149–57; Chartier, Order of Books, esp. 25–59. Biagioli emphasizes the ambiguous situation that such patronage represented for authors such as Galileo and points to Galileo’s bricolage skills to negotiate to his own advantage. Chartier discusses the complexity of authorship and the “author-function” in the early modern period. He describes the patron-author in the context of the court but also points to authors who asserted their presence and even originality in their textual productions long before the eighteenth century. 20. See esp. Kemp, “From ‘Mimesis’ to ‘Fantasia’”; and Kemp, “‘Super-Artist’ as Genius.” For Brunelleschi’s patent, see Prager, “Brunelleschi’s Patent”; and see Cole, “Titian and the Idea of Originality.” 21. Saunders, Authorship and Copyright, 79–81. For an introduction to intellectualproperty law, see esp. Boyle...
OR
Buy This Book in Print