Hartlib was communicating an innumerable number of ideas. In a work such as this one, it is impossible to explore or even list all of the topics or all of the correspondents which appear in the Papers; especially those which were discussed casually or only once by Hartlib or his
correspondents. Many of these were fanciful curiosities while many others are shadows of useful inventions which were coming. In recording his meeting with Hartlib, John Evelyn mentioned “Castles which they set for ornament on their stoves in Germanie which are furnished with small ordinance of silver on the battlements, out of which they discharge excellent
Perfumes about the rooms, charging them with a little Powder to set them on fire & disperse the
208
Hall and Hall, Henry Oldenburg, p. xxxv.
209
Winthrop, Correspondence.
210
smoke” and “of an Inke that would give a dozen Copies, moist Sheetes of Paper being pressed on it, & remaine perfect.”211
Hartlib attempted to connect as many scholars as possible.212 The traveler in Macaria asks, “Doe you know any man that hath any secrets, or good experiments? I will give him gold for them, or others as good in exchange.” This is how Hartlib wished himself to be. He positioned himself as the relay point, a headquarters of information collection, organization, interpretation, duplication, dissemination, and preservation. He happened to be in London but that was a good location for geographical, political, theological, and correspondence reasons. He introduced many scholars to others doing research. He spoke of promising experimenters to benefactors who had the ability to fund research. He was quick to welcome like-minded strangers into his circle. He preached it, he wrote about it, he sent copies to the government. He was an empirical evangelist calling scholars to faith in experimental science. He said he would organize a
conference to put men together who had new ideas to make the world a better place. “If I could change all the minds in England as easily as I suppose I shall change yours . . .,” he wrote. This is what he tried to do.
Unity is one of the most important themes in attempting to understand Hartlib’s reason for communicating. Just as Dury spent his life attempting to forge a unity of Protestant
denominations, Hartlib longed for unity across the disciplines, breaking down intellectual, social, and technological divisions between scholars, projectors, politicians, educators, and scientists.213 As Greengrass has pointed out, “What makes the discussions within the Hartlib circle so
important is the commonality of their concerns.” One of his greatest concerns, however, was preserving and promoting unity, unity among Protestants, unity among scholars, and all
211
Bédoyère, John Evelyn, p. 108.
212
Rutherford, The Biographical Dictionary of British Economists, p. 947.
213
assuming the union of the material and spiritual worlds. Some believe the divisions in the church would be healed in the millennium. Others such as Hartlib and Dury believed the divisions must be healed first in order to instigate the millennium. As Webster pointed out, it was a common saying among the Puritans, “in unum universi, in unum Corpus, in unum Spiritum, unum Sensum, qui vere audint Christiani.”214
Correspondence was at the heart of Hartlib’s purpose for the Office of Public Address, especially in the half he called The Office of Communications. In the proposal he wrote:
Entertainement to an Agent to find out Men of Parts and Abilities, to tender their severall proposals for the Advancement of Learning to the Feoffies, <Trustees>, and Keep Correspondence with such of them as reside in remote and forraigne places, and soliciting of all other businesses subordinate thereunto.215
This is what Hartlib was doing but here is his attempt to institutionalize the communications method which he felt was so important. It’s what had created his circle and it was the path to the goal of unity in the work toward universal knowledge. Correspondence was the means by which correspondents assured each other that they were still included, that they were connected. In a world in which there was no better way to communicate over distance, a letter helped scholars feel connected, that they were included in a continental conversation. Conversely, the lack of a letter or some unexplained absence of mail left a scientist despondent and worried about their relationship with others. John Hall is typical of many examples in the Papers, writing to Hartlib that having received no communication left him feeling “vnspeakable griefe.”216 How much of
that was exaggerated rhetoric and how much of it was genuine concern? Hall went on to claim he was unable to work because he was so unhappy about not having heard from Hartlib.
214
Webster, The Great Instauration, p. 18.
215
Samuel Hartlib. Draft Agreement & Memo On The Advancement Of Learning In Scribal Hand E, undated. From The University of Sheffield, The Hartlib Papers 1620-1662. www.hrionline.ac.uk/hartlib/view?file=main/47B_15 (accessed October 25, 2014).
216
John Hall. Letter, John Hall To Hartlib, 8 February [1647?]. From The University of Sheffield, The Hartlib Papers 1620-1662. http://www.hrionline.ac.uk/hartlib/view?file=main/60C_14_20 (accessed October 25, 2014).
Although Robert Child was in Dublin, he asked for a “Certayne & Constant Correspondence”217 from the center of the circle, because it wasn’t just Hartlib he wanted to hear from. Hall, Child, and many others knew that a letter from Hartlib would link them to everyone else in the invisible college. It was a commonwealth of letters. Joseph Avery wrote in 1641 that his happiness was dependent upon correspondence from Hartlib.218 It is difficult for a modern student to
understand the importance of a letter in the seventeenth century. In a world with no internet, telephone, television, radio, or even telegraph, a letter was the only way someone could receive news from a distance except for the reception of a traveler who arrived in person. A letter was information but it was also a reminder that a person was important to the one who took the time to put a pen in ink a write words specifically created for the particular person to whom the letter was addressed. Correspondence represented a relationship such as Dury sought to establish with Alexander Henderson when he wrote in 1644, “But because I conceaved that it might bee of Vse to lay a ground of[H alters] good and brotherly Correspondence between yowe <H: you> & the leading men of these partes.”219