Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T09:35:43.741Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Isaac Frost's Two Systems of Astronomy (1846): plebeian resistance and scriptural astronomy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 May 2005

FRANCIS REID
FRANCIS REID
Affiliation:
Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge, Free School Lane, Cambridge CB2 3RH, UK.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In early nineteenth-century London audiences flocked to a variety of lectures and shows on astronomical topics. While the religious and social positions of the lecturers and showmen varied significantly, the vast majority adopted a Newtonian cosmology incorporating a belief in the plurality of worlds. This paper focuses on Isaac Frost's 1846 book Two Systems of Astronomy in an attempt to gain a fuller understanding of how some thinkers in plebeian London responded to and resisted this emergent astronomical orthodoxy. Central to this analysis is research that reveals how changes in the intellectual world of Frost and his Muggletonian co-religionists prompted this formerly non-proselytizing Protestant sect to become increasingly vocal during the nineteenth century. This research is based upon a thorough examination of the Muggletonian archive in the British Library together with a collection of approximately thirty Muggletonian letters deposited in the Oxfordshire Records Office in 1993 and not examined by previous historians. It is concluded that the unorthodox or anti-Newtonian cosmologies advanced by several early nineteenth-century thinkers were often intellectually coherent and embodied in receptive social contexts.

Type
Research Article
Information
The British Journal for the History of Science , Volume 38 , Issue 2 , June 2005 , pp. 161 - 177
Copyright
© 2005 British Society for the History of Science

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Writing this paper would not have been possible without the help and support of a number of people. I would like to thank my two anonymous referees for their helpful comments. James A. Secord and Simon Schaffer deserve special thanks for their guidance, patience and constructive criticism. For helpful suggestions and comments at the outset of my research I am indebted to Kevin Lewis, Allan Collautt, Roger Smith, Michael Bakich, John Whitbourn and Sujit Sivasundaram. To the staff of the Oxfordshire Records Office; the British Library; the Whipple Library and Museum, in particular Boris Jardine; and the Cambridge University Library, I am grateful for their professionalism and assistance. To my wife Ester, whose love, support and advice I rely upon and value. Finally, to the Girdlers’ Company; Corpus Christi College, Cambridge; the Cambridge Commonwealth Trust; the Overseas Research Studentship Scheme; and the Top Achiever Doctoral Scholarship Scheme, without whose past, present and future financial support my research would not be possible.