“Trust No One But - 麻省理工学院人工智能研究专业

“Trust No One But
Yourself”: 威廉
Gilbert’s Use of
Experiment and
Rejection of
Authority, Reconsidered

Johanna Luggin
Ludwig Boltzmann Institut für
Neulateinische Studien

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

One of the most important components of early modern science was the exper-
iment. Advocates of the “new sciences” used experiments as indisputable evi-
dence in controversies with their opponents and as powerful arguments against
authoritative texts. Among the ﬁrst early modern scientiﬁc works to systema-
tically and successfully use experiments as parts of the central argumentation
is William Gilbert’s treatise De magnete (1600), in which the author
sought to present a completely new theory of magnetism as an explanation
of phenomena on earth as well as of the movements of heavenly bodies. 吉尔伯特
goes to great lengths to persuade his readers of the innovation of his nova et
inaudita physiologia. 为了这, 然而, it did not sufﬁce to present a star-
tling number of experiments and advocate empirical investigation. This con-
tribution will shed light on the surprising literary and rhetorical tools
employed in the De magnete in questions of authority, which aided Gilbert
in presenting his powerful and highly successful “New Physiology.”

This special issue shows in all its contributions how early modern cosmol-
ogy relied heavily on the concept of trust. Believing in authorities was fun-
damental, and any doubt in their expertise had to be justiﬁed carefully

Special thanks go to the editors of this special issue, the reviewers of this contribution as
well as to the participants of the conference “(的)Constructing authority in early modern
cosmology” for their helpful comments and suggestions on previous versions of this article.
This project has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the
European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement No.
[741374]).

科学观点 2022, 卷. 30, 不. 6
© 2022 由麻省理工学院

https://doi.org/10.1162/posc_a_00564

925

e
d
你
p
哦
s
C
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

3
0
6
9
2
5
2
0
5
9
5
3
2
p
哦
s
C
_
A
_
0
0
5
6
4
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

926

Gilbert’s Use of Experiment

(Danneberg 2003, PP. 162–72; 布莱尔 2006; Danneberg 2009). One impor-
tant methodological approach that is often showcased as the crucial differ-
ence between pre-modern and modern science is empirical investigation.
Advocates of the “new sciences” used experiments as powerful arguments
against allegedly blind trust in authoritative texts. 然而, if we look at
how experimental reports in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were
employed in scientiﬁc argumentation, it becomes apparent that the experi-
ment itself, the sole report of a trial and its results, was not always persuasive.
By choosing a particular case study, a work that explicitly advocates exper-
imental knowledge taking the place of mere trust in authoritative texts, 这
following contribution will show that the experiment alone was by no means
enough to replace the vast space of authoritative book knowledge. 阿迪-
tional strategies were required. In our example, literary and rhetorical tools
were employed in questions of authority alongside new empirical methods,
creating a persuasive piece of argumentation.

在 1600, William Gilbert, president of the Royal College and Elizabeth
I’s private physician1, published his treatise De magnete magneticisque corpor-
ibus et de magno magnete tellure physiologia nova [New Physiology of the Lodestone
and Other Magnetic Bodies and of the Great Magnet, the Earth] (吉尔伯特 1600).
在这项工作中, the author analyzed the properties of magnetic bodies, 这样的
as the lodestone, a naturally magnetized form of iron ore, and he exposed a
new theory of magnetic and electric phenomena. While numerous scholars
from antiquity to the early modern era had already analyzed magnetic phe-
nomena and their origin, extent, and consequences, Gilbert’s monograph
was presented to the reader as the ﬁrst published systematic treatment of
magnetism in one volume (Roller 1959, PP. 92–153; Pumfrey 1987; 比照.
Ugaglia 2006 for a differentiated view). Gilbert’s examinations using
spherical lodestones, which he called terellae, or “small earths,” led him
to base his explanations of magnetic phenomena on Earth on what he
deﬁned as the ﬁve magnetic motiones, “movements”—attraction, 方向,
variation, dip, and rotation (见图. 1; Roller 1959, PP. 154–62; Pumfrey
2002, PP. 136–58). Signiﬁcant for this issue of early modern cosmology
are the cosmological consequences of Gilbert’s view on magnetic bodies
and the magnetic earth: in the last of his six books on the lodestone, 吉尔伯特
explained how magnetism both rotated the Earth diurnally and magneti-
cally stabilized its axis of rotation.

De magnete proved very inﬂuential. It laid the foundations for the under-
standing of magnetic properties and shaped the majority of knowledge on
magnetism as well as on electrical forces until the nineteenth century (Zilsel
1941; Daujat 1945; 香脂 1956; Roller 1959; Hesse 1960a, 1960乙;

For Gilbert’s biography, see Roller 1959, PP. 50–91.

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
p
哦
s
C
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

3
0
6
9
2
5
2
0
5
9
5
3
2
p
哦
s
C
_
A
_
0
0
5
6
4
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

科学观点

927

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
p
哦
s
C
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

3
0
6
9
2
5
2
0
5
9
5
3
2
p
哦
s
C
_
A
_
0
0
5
6
4
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

数字 1. Image of a so-called inclinometer, an instrument measuring the
magnetic dip, the angle of the compass needle with the horizontal line, invented
by Robert Norman and included in the De magnete. 吉尔伯特 1600, p. 185. ETH-
Bibliothek Zürich, Rar 1253, https://doi.org/10.3931/e-rara-8370.

西部荒野 1971, PP. 25–8; Heilbron 1979, PP. 169–79; Freudenthal 1983;
Pumfrey 1987, 2000, 2002). Apart from its ground-breaking scientiﬁc con-
tent on magnetic properties, De magnete presented intriguing strategies of
deconstructing and constructing authority, which will be the focus of this

928

Gilbert’s Use of Experiment

contribution. Two distinct and interconnected features made the mono-
graph an outstanding natural philosophical work at the time of its publica-
的: (1) Gilbert used numerous experiments as part of his reasoning, 大多数
which were supposedly carried out by himself over decades of thorough
调查. (2) 同时, from the outset of his work, the royal
physician criticized mindless belief in authorities, rejected book knowledge
in general and advocated a new, empirical approach toward understanding
the cosmos. That he himself did not, and in fact could not, adhere to this very
high standard in the Magnes has been shown by several historians of science
(Pumfrey 1987, PP. 14–22).2 This article will not repeat the importance of
the treatise’s scientiﬁc features, making it a seminal contribution to early
modern science, but will focus on the wider argument of the work—the
beginning of a wholly new chapter in natural history. Gilbert goes about
constructing this argument by employing important rhetorical devices in
addition to scientiﬁc ones. This might be surprising if we read Gilbert’s sty-
listic statement in the preface, claiming that he did not employ excessive
rhetorical ornament in his work.3 Strategies of persuasion, 然而, encom-
pass far more than rhetorical ﬁgures and grand style, and Gilbert’s work
shows how a text written in large parts in technical Latin and an impersonal
tone can still make use of two rhetorical modes of persuasion, which will be
presented in the following chapters: 标志, the rational argument, and ethos,
the self-fashioning of the author.

Logos: Gilbert’s Use of Experiment

1.
Experimental science was only slowly developing at the beginning of the
seventeenth century. Experiment reports were often used to reinforce an
争论, consisting of other strategies of persuasion, most commonly
the use of written authorities. They did not represent the sole proof (Dear
1985, 1991, 2006). A considerable part of the reasoning can even be con-
sidered as adhering not exclusively to logic or factual evidence. 反而, 我们
can look at and analyze the use of a device that early modern natural phi-
losophers applied when writing a piece of persuasive text, which modern
scholarship has sometimes ignored: the system of rhetoric. Ancient and
Renaissance rhetoric, as it had been taught to almost every natural philos-
opher of the time, was regularly employed to persuade the audience in a
form which was more than familiar to the res publica litteraria (Serjeantson

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
p
哦
s
C
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

3
0
6
9
2
5
2
0
5
9
5
3
2
p
哦
s
C
_
A
_
0
0
5
6
4
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

2. On Gilbert’s appropriation of Leonardo Garzoni’s work see Garzoni (2005);

Ugaglia (2006); Sander (2020, PP. 804–39).

3. 吉尔伯特 1600, 遵循. [三、]r: “Nec huic operi ullum eloquentiae fucum aut verborum
ornatum attulimus.” (“And in this work we have not employed any of the disguises of
grandiloquence or rhetorical ﬂourish”). Hereinafter, all translations from Gilbert’s De
magnete are my own.

科学观点

929

2006; Mack 2011; Luggin 2021). In Gilbert’s treatise, empirical knowl-
edge and material aspects played a crucial role, and the author described
his many trials with terellae and iron needles and presented detailed discus-
sions of instruments such as the compass or the inclinometer (见图. 1).
The importance of the composition of his text, the “literary constitution
and function” (Dear 1991, p. 163) of his demonstrations show us that
Gilbert artfully combined empirical investigation and knowledge gained
from objects with rhetorical strategies.

If we search for a place of experimental knowledge to analyze its
employment against the background of ancient rhetoric, we can interpret
it as an example of “non-artistic proof ” according to Aristotelian rhetoric.
In contrast to artfully created arguments according to the devices of rhe-
toric, such as syllogisms, enthymeme, 迹象, or examples (Arist. Rhet. 1.2.2
[Aristotle 1959]; Lausberg 2008, PP. 193–235), these non-artistic proofs
are not invented or inﬂuenced as much by the author but form external
证据. Other examples for such external proof were laws, contracts, 或者
witnesses, which could all be employed within an argument as evidence
implied to be objective because it was seemingly formed outside the realm
of inﬂuence of the author (Arist. Rhet. 1.2.2; Lausberg 2008, PP. 191–93).
仍然, non-artistic proofs did not speak for themselves, but they had to be
implemented into reasoning with careful deliberation. The importance of a
法律, or the relevance of a contract, or the statements of a witness were
shaped by the rhetor, or author, to adhere to his or her case. This holds true
also for the use of empirical knowledge in early modern scientiﬁc argumen-
站, and speciﬁcally Gilbert’s work. An experiment without explanation
of the circumstances or exposition of the signiﬁcance of its results did not
have much persuasive power (Dear 1991, 2006). 作为结果, in many
cases experiments were interwoven with mathematical demonstration or
with a careful narration of the circumstances of its execution, 哪个, 在
the way of an ekphrasis, could be long, 吸引人的, and include surprising ele-
评论 (例如, in Kepler’s Astronomia nova. See Gingerich 1989, PP. 61–9;
Voelkel 2001, PP. 111–54; Wootton 2015, PP. 262–68; Luggin 2021).
When employing an experiment within his reasoning, an early modern sci-
entist could also make use of witnesses. They were to play a large role in
presenting reliable, 值得信赖的, and empirical knowledge (Lausberg
2008, PP. 191–93; Shapin and Schaffer 1985; Lackey and Sosa 2006; 在
Gilbert see Cunningham 2001). A careful contextualization and interpreta-
tion of the empirical evidence and its consequences for the case at hand seems
to generally have been necessary for an experiment report to be persuasive.
William Gilbert’s work also shows strategies to employ these proofs in
an appropriate way in his reasoning. 然而, his employment of exper-
imental knowledge is slightly different than the cases just mentioned, 和

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
p
哦
s
C
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

3
0
6
9
2
5
2
0
5
9
5
3
2
p
哦
s
C
_
A
_
0
0
5
6
4
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

930

Gilbert’s Use of Experiment

from other contemporary scientiﬁc works, as we will see now. De magnete
presents numerous experiments as part of the argumentation. 这是
announced in the full title of the work: De magnete magneticisque corporibus
et de magno magnete tellure physiologia nova plurimis et argumentis et experimentis
demonstrata [New Physiology of the Lodestone and Other Magnetic Bodies and of
the Great Magnet, the Earth, Demonstrated in Numerous Arguments and Exper-
瞬间]. While the emphasis on novelty is not exactly extraordinary in the
natural philosophy of the time (Thorndike 1951; 科恩 2010, p. 252), 这
seemingly overwhelming number of experimenta reported in the De magnete
has no parallel in the works of contemporaries. Gilbert’s predecessors
had also made use of experiments but described several dozen at most
( Wootton 2015, PP. 327–32; Pumfrey 2002, PP. 109–10). The sheer
number of allegedly original empirical knowledge presented—more than
two hundred instances—did make an impression on his readers, 不管
if Gilbert did really perform all of them himself. Not all these descriptions
of empirical knowledge amounted to experiments in the modern sense:
many instances simply state the conclusions drawn from empirical investi-
门, which were not always described. Experimenta, for the natural
philosopher at the eve of the seventeenth century, not only comprised the
actual experimental practice but also experience in the wider sense (科恩
1985, p. 133; Dear 2006). For Gilbert, it also encompassed the knowledge
gained from this experience, and he speciﬁcally combined his empirical
知识 (experimenta) with solid demonstration (argumentis) in both his
title and preface (吉尔伯特 1600, 遵循. iir). As experimental practice and its
systematic employment in scientiﬁc reasoning was still a novelty at the time,
Gilbert’s readers did not speciﬁcally consider the distinction between the
actual practice and the knowledge gained from experience. The persuasive
force of De magnete’s novel empirical approach was not hindered by it:
Gilbert’s work was from the beginning characterized most of all as a work
embodying the new method of presenting empirical knowledge as the most
important evidence.

Gilbert made clear from the very beginning of his text the crucial role of
his use of empirical knowledge: The preface, one of the most important
places for a programmatic statement in early modern books (Enenkel
2015, PP. 1–53; 521–90), underlines his use of experimenta repeatedly, call-
ing attention to it and stressing the deﬁciency of book knowledge or the
disadvantages of faulty experiments (吉尔伯特 1600, 特别是. 遵循. iir–iiiv). 这里,
Gilbert explains his method of deliberately using what he calls “certain
experiments” and “validated arguments” to obtain stronger reasoning:

Since in uncovering hidden phenomena and investigating the secret
causes of things, stronger conclusions arise from certain experiments

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
p
哦
s
C
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

3
0
6
9
2
5
2
0
5
9
5
3
2
p
哦
s
C
_
A
_
0
0
5
6
4
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

科学观点

931

and validated arguments than from probable conjectures and the
beliefs of common speculators [……]. (吉尔伯特 1600, 遵循. iir)4

In attacking coniectura probabiliora carried out by common philosophers,
Gilbert reprimanded the philosophy taught at English universities at
时间, including his former professors, WHO, in his view, placed too
much value on written authorities and too little on empirical knowledge
(Zilsel 1941, PP. 26–7). He argued against exclusive book knowledge,
addressing his intended readership who should rise above such blind trust
in authority, toward a new kind of philosophy:

But I have dedicated these foundations of magnetism, a new manner
of philosophizing, to you alone, who truly philosophize, noble-
minded men, who inquire knowledge not only in books but also in
the things themselves. (吉尔伯特 1600, 遵循. iiv)5

Given the high number of experimenta detailed in the book, it would have
been almost impossible for Gilbert to present what we would come to
know as fairly standard experiment reports of the seventeenth century:
长的, detailed narrations of one certain operation with considerable con-
文本, 例如, in event-like reports of the Royal Society in the second half of
the century (Shapin and Schaffer 1985; Dear 2006). 反而, Gilbert pre-
sented varied forms of experience, from longer reports of his trials to short
statements of his conclusions only. To get his readers to trust his opera-
系统蒸发散, even if he did not always give them the context of the actual prac-
泰斯, the author made use of additional strategies to support his claims,
which were not linked to scientiﬁc evidence, but to his presentation of
it in his book. These were not meant to replace some lack of evidence,
but to reinforce his proofs.

Apart from the persuasive force of the sheer number of experimenta pre-
已发送, Gilbert introduced a completely new tool to emphasize his use of
empirical knowledge and, 同时, strengthen the methodical
signiﬁcance of these experimenta. Throughout his book, he marked every
one of his original experimental procedures, be they larger set-ups or
smaller trials, in a special way, with asterisks in the margin. The size of
the mark, a small or large asterisk, was determined by the importance of
the respective operation, as the author explains in the preface (见图. 2;

“Cum in arcanis inveniendis, et abditis rerum causis perqiurendis, ab experimentis
certioribus, et argumentis demonstratis, validiores existant rationes, quam a probabilibus
coniecturis, et vulgo philosophantium placitis [……].” (吉尔伯特 1600, 遵循. iiv)

“Sed vobis tantum vere philosophantibus, viris ingenuis, qui non ex libris solum,
sed ex rebus ipsis scientiam quaeritis, fundamenta ista magnetica commendavi, novo phi-
losophandi genere.”

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
p
哦
s
C
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

3
0
6
9
2
5
2
0
5
9
5
3
2
p
哦
s
C
_
A
_
0
0
5
6
4
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

932

Gilbert’s Use of Experiment

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
p
哦
s
C
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

3
0
6
9
2
5
2
0
5
9
5
3
2
p
哦
s
C
_
A
_
0
0
5
6
4
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

数字 2. A page of chapter 12 of Book III of the De magnete, showing Gilbert’s
usage of small and big asterisks to mark his experimenta, according to importance.
吉尔伯特 1600, p. 140. ETH-Bibliothek Zürich, Rar 1253, https://doi.org/10.3931
/e-rara-8370.

科学观点

933

吉尔伯特 1600, 遵循. iiv). This practice is very peculiar and is, to my knowl-
边缘, not found in any similar scientiﬁc work of the time. It was a visual
representation of the author’s empirical evidence, of his knowledge, 和的
all his original ﬁndings. The picture thus painted of Gilbert’s excessive use
of experimental knowledge was presumably even larger than the actual
experimental practice standing behind it. Gilbert did not report only
his own empirical knowledge but also numerous reports of other scholars’
investigations. As was common practice, he repeated and adapted a num-
ber of experiments, including some providing signiﬁcant new knowledge,
from earlier works, such as Girolamo Cardano’s De subtilitate (1550),
Giambattista della Porta’s Magia naturalis (1558), and Robert Norman’s
The Newe Attractive (1581) (吉尔伯特 1600, PP. 2, 7–8, 107, 161–62,
169; Zilsel 1941; 亨利 2001). 然而, Gilbert did not mark these
instances with an asterisk, as only original knowledge was recorded in this
方式. He also marked many additional things as inventa et experimenta so that
his empirical evidence would seem even greater. This includes delibera-
tions on why he used a terrella for his experimental trials and how to make
一 (吉尔伯特 1600, PP. 12–13); and general or more speciﬁc statements
about conclusion drawn from empirical knowledge, not the actual practice
本身 (例如, 吉尔伯特 1600, p. 51). With more than two hundred asterisks
spread over the 240 pages of De magnete, the picture for the reader was
clearly meant to be one of extensive, unprecedented empirical knowledge
and practice.

Another aspect of this strategy of putting asterisks in the margins
brings us back to the question of authority: This display of the author’s
inventa et experimenta through marginalia did not show only his empirical
知识, but it also served to replace (其他) 当局. 传统上,
the reader would have found mentions of Aristotle, Paracelsus, Girolamo
Cardano, and others in the margins, next to passages quoting or paraphras-
ing their opinions. It appears that Gilbert refused to continue this estab-
lished practice and banned these authorities from the margins, seemingly
replacing them with his own original knowledge.

That this practice of marking experiments and conclusions with aster-
isks is peculiar is conﬁrmed if we look at its reception. Later scholars did
not adopt this method, nor do the asterisks appear in later, unauthorized
editions of De magnete itself (see Gilbert 1628, 1629). It seems as if either
publishers or printers did not understand Gilbert’s strategy or that they
did not think it necessary to repeat it.

The form of experimenta reported by Gilbert is equally intriguing: 后
an introductory book on the lodestone in general, Gilbert discusses the
properties of magnetic bodies and their “natural movements” in Books
II to V. These contain the bulk of the author’s experimental knowledge.

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
p
哦
s
C
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

3
0
6
9
2
5
2
0
5
9
5
3
2
p
哦
s
C
_
A
_
0
0
5
6
4
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

934

Gilbert’s Use of Experiment

Some operations are decidedly brief and concise. As has been mentioned,
they do not always form full experimental reports but often simply state
the most important steps of an operation or even merely idealized results
without any details about the experimental practice supposedly standing
behind it. As Gilbert arranged these short reports and conclusions predom-
inantly one after the other, forming chains of four, ﬁve, 或者更多, 这确实
not retract from the persuasive force of his experimenta (例如, 吉尔伯特 1600,
PP. 139–42; see also Fig. 3). What Gilbert’s accounts sometimes lack in
细节, they make up for with this strategy using the force of numbers,
再次, presenting, if not always particularized, but always substantial
empirical knowledge.

Some of the experimental reports are accompanied by methodological
musings on the achievement and use of empirical knowledge in general,
ranging from abstract criticism of book knowledge to concrete guidelines
and instructions (Georgescu 2013). In Book III, 例如, Gilbert crit-
icized natural philosophers, in this instance particularly Giambattista della
Porta, who used experiments, 但, because of their problematic methods,
reached and defended the wrong conclusions:

But inquirers of nature should beware that they will not be further
deceived by their own carelessly observed experiments and will not
confuse the republic of letters with mistakes and foolery. (吉尔伯特
1600, p. 143)6

Such a confutatio of others’ opinions is almost always either preceded or
followed immediately by Gilbert’s own experimental report on the matter.
In this instance, della Porta had declared and supposedly shown in an
experiment that rubbing iron with a diamond would turn it magnetic.
That adamas should inﬂuence the magnetic properties of
iron had
already been laid out by Pliny the Elder (XXXVII, 14 [Pliny the
Elder 1906]) and repeated by later scholars (Roller 1959, PP. 25–6).7
Detecting errors in della Porta’s method of experimentation, Gilbert set
out to falsify the former’s conclusion:

这 [della Porta’s observation] 实际上, would be contrary to our
magnetic rules. 所以, I repeated the experiment myself using
seventy-ﬁve diamonds, in presence of many witnesses, [……] 与

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
p
哦
s
C
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

3
0
6
9
2
5
2
0
5
9
5
3
2
p
哦
s
C
_
A
_
0
0
5
6
4
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

“Sed caveant naturalium rerum scrutatores, ne illi suis experimentis male observatis

amplius decipiantur, et literariam rem publicam erroribus et ineptis perturbent.”

这是, 然而, unclear which mineral Pliny and other ancient writers meant when
speaking of adamas. Several substances are probably subsumed under this term. Early mod-
ern writers mostly interpreted the ancient text as meaning what they now knew as (大多
uncut) diamonds, see Dana 1837, PP. 331–32.

科学观点

935

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
p
哦
s
C
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

3
0
6
9
2
5
2
0
5
9
5
3
2
p
哦
s
C
_
A
_
0
0
5
6
4
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

数字 3. An example of cumulative empiric evidence: Gilbert mentioning one
ﬁnding or experiment after the other and marking them with asterisks. 吉尔伯特
1600, p. 102. ETH-Bibliothek Zürich, Rar 1253, https://doi.org/10.3931/e-rara
-8370.

936

Gilbert’s Use of Experiment

utmost care [……]. 它是, 然而, never granted me to observe this.
(吉尔伯特 1600, p. 143)8

refutation of della Porta’s experiment,

Through this particular
这
confirmation of the author’s own expertly achieved evidence, 和
general methodological criticism of his predecessors, Gilbert’s conclusions
should seem all the more persuasive to the reader. In this particular case,
the use of witnesses as an additional means of making experiments
persuasive is especially highlighted. Something else becomes evident here:
Gilbert replicated an experiment of della Porta’s and allegedly repeated it
seventy-five times. 反过来, some of his reports testify to Gilbert’s
efforts of making his own experiments replicable. Time and again, 他
commented on particular conditions that are vital to the outcome of the
experiment and gave the reader clear instructions on what to do and what
to avoid. This virtue of reliability through repetition would in the course
of the century soon become a crucial point of the new experimental
方法 (Dear 1991, p. 162; 坎宁安 2001; Schickore 2010; Steinle
2016).

Gilbert goes to great lengths to show his mastery of all the operations
discussed, even though he provided numerous experimental reports, 哪个
do not reveal the identity or character of the person designing and con-
ducting the investigation. Most reports in the De magnete are delivered
in an impersonal, descriptive, or prescriptive style. An example of a short
prescriptive report can be found in Chapter 2 of Book II, which treats the
attraction of amber. 这里, Gilbert directly addressed the reader, 提供
instructions for how to perform the experiment, as shown by the two
imperative verbs:

Now in order clearly to understand by experience how such
attraction takes place, and what those substances may be that so
attract other bodies [……], make yourself a rotating needle of any sort of
metal, three or four ﬁngers long, pretty light, and poised on a sharp
point after the manner of a magnetic pointer. Bring near to one end of
it a piece of amber or a lightly rubbed gem, polished and shining: 在
once the instrument revolves. (吉尔伯特 1600, PP. 48–49; 如图. 5; 我的
emphasis)9

“Hoc quidem contrarium esset regulis nostris magneticis. Ob eamque causam peri-
culum nos fecimus septuaginta adamantibus praestantibus, coram multis testibus, [……] arte
accuratissima [……]. Nunquam tamen hoc cernere licebat.”

“Sed ut poteris manifeste experiri quomodo talis sit attractio, et quae sint illae
materiae, quae alia sic alliciunt corpora, [……] fac tibi versorium ex quovis metallo, 长的-
itudinis trium vel quatuor digitorum, satis leve supra acum suam, more indicis magnetici,

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
p
哦
s
C
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

3
0
6
9
2
5
2
0
5
9
5
3
2
p
哦
s
C
_
A
_
0
0
5
6
4
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

科学观点

937

数字 4. One of Gilbert’s experiments in Book II concerns the phenomenon of
verticity, the tendency of a needle toward the North or South poles of a terella. 如果
an iron needle is placed between a lodestone (A) and an iron sphere (乙; 多于), 它
tends toward the pole of the lodestone with more force than if it were placed next
to both the iron sphere and the lodestone. 吉尔伯特 1600, p. 85. ETH-Bibliothek
苏黎世, Rar 1253, https://doi.org/10.3931/e-rara-8370.

Descriptive accounts in an impersonal style could be equally short, 作为
following example shows, detailing the phenomenon of verticity, 这
tendency of a needle toward the North or South poles of a terella:

Let A be a spherical lodestone, B an iron sphere, F a needle between
the two bodies, with its point magnetized by the pole C. In the other
ﬁgure let A be a spherical lodestone, C the pole, B an iron sphere,
where the needle tends through the iron sphere to the pole of the
lodestone, C. The needle thus placed between lodestone and the iron
sphere vibrates more forcibly toward the pole of the terrella because
the loadstone imparts instantaneous verticity to the opposite sphere.
(吉尔伯特 1600, p. 85; 如图. 4)10

10.

cuius alteri ﬁni appone succinum, vel lapillum leniter fricatum, nitidum et politum, nam
illico versorium convertit se.”

“A terella, B globus ferreus, F versorium inter duo corpora, cuius cuspis excita fuit
polo C. In altera ﬁgura A terrella, C polus, B globus ferreus, ubi versorium tendit per glo-
bum ferreum versus C polum terrellae. Sic versorium positum inter terrellam et globum
ferreum ﬁrmius vibratur in polum terellae: quia magnes immittit verticitatem subitaneam
in globum adversum.”

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
p
哦
s
C
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

3
0
6
9
2
5
2
0
5
9
5
3
2
p
哦
s
C
_
A
_
0
0
5
6
4
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

938

Gilbert’s Use of Experiment

数字 5. A versorium, an instrument used by Gilbert in many of his experiments
to determine magnetic as well as electric attraction. A metallic, preferably iron,
needle poised on a sharp point, so that it can rotate freely and display magnetic or
electric forces. 吉尔伯特 1600, p. 49. ETH-Bibliothek Zürich, Rar 1253, https://
doi.org/10.3931/e-rara-8370.

This impersonal or prescriptive style of presentation as well as the
shortness of many reports could in many cases conceal the identity of the
experimenter. 仍然, if we consider the latter example, it becomes clear that
the outcome of this setup and the conclusions drawn from it were very
much determined by the experimenter, 吉尔伯特, 他自己. His observations
were not quantitative, and they relied upon numerous external conditions,
which are not always transparent from his short reports. 更,
even though Gilbert included prescriptive accounts and urged the reader
to repeat his experimenta in the preface (吉尔伯特 1600, 遵循. iiir), because of
the style of his reports and the many details left out, for numerous cases in
De magnete an actual repetition of the experimental practice would have
been difﬁcult. This raises the question regarding how the author could still
establish enough trustworthiness in all his operations.

Apart from the size of experimental knowledge depicted, the visualiza-
tion through asterisks, the explicit methodological musings, and refutation
of authorities, another strategy of persuasion was of crucial importance in
establishing this trust: Gilbert’s many personal statements about his labo-
rious search for truth through empirical investigation, which we can ﬁnd
in the paratexts, but also preceding or following the experimental reports,
换句话说, the self-fashioning of the author.

Ethos, or Constructing Oneself as the Sole Authority

2.
From the preface and ﬁrst chapters of the De magnete, one characteristic of
the work related to the emphasis on empirical investigation becomes clear
at once: Gilbert’s rejection of authorities and book knowledge. Relying on
one’s conclusions in the written word alone is the biggest crime imagin-
able to him:

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
p
哦
s
C
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

3
0
6
9
2
5
2
0
5
9
5
3
2
p
哦
s
C
_
A
_
0
0
5
6
4
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

科学观点

939

[……] in such a vast sea of books, by which the minds of the studious
are harassed and wearied; silly books by which common people and
impertinent scholars are intoxicated, speak deliriously, are inﬂated;
they create a literary commotion and claim to be philosophers,
physicians, mathematicians, astrologers, all the while ignoring and
scorning genuinely learned men. (吉尔伯特 1600, 遵循. iiv)11

Gilbert criticizes the opinions of classical thinkers, such as peripatetic
philosophers, Pliny the Elder, Ptolemy, Galen, as well as more recent ones,
such as Paracelsus, Marsilio Ficino and other Neo-Platonists, Julius Caesar
Scaliger, Francesco Maurolico, Girolamo Cardano, and many more. 在
very beginning of his work, he entitled the first chapter of the first book
Veterum et recentiorum scripta de magnete [……], opiniones variae et vanitates
(“Writings of ancients and moderns on the lodestone [……], different opin-
ions and delusions”; 吉尔伯特 1600, PP. 1–8.). This dismissal of the auctor-
itas of both ancient and recent writers, and the rejection of the argumentum
ab auctoritate are harsh indeed, but deﬁnitely not unique for that time.
Similar positions could be found in some contemporary scholarly accounts.
因此, Francesco Patrizi and Giordano Bruno likewise criticized authorita-
tive texts to present and promote their views (Vasoli 1989; 布鲁姆 2012;
Akopyan 2019). 吉尔伯特, 它似乎, modeled his own ideas on such bold
undertakings and suggested that the old textual authorities ought to be
replaced with an innovative physiologia nova. The title “New Physiology”
might even be an analogy to similar claims of innovation by natural phi-
losophers, such as Bruno, who called his new knowledge system “new phi-
losophy” (Knox 2018), or Patrizi, who wrote inter alia a Nova de universis
philosophia (Akopyan 2019). While such endeavors seem to reinforce the
claim that ancient authorities and rhetorical argumentation are simply
replaced by empirical knowledge in early modern times, the picture is
更复杂.

More often than not, the traditional ancient, medieval, and contempo-
rary authorities constituted the basis for new scientiﬁc undertakings. 新的
hypotheses and discoveries were commonly presented as being predomi-
nantly in line with the authoritative worldview, simply adding a novel
nuance to it. Another strategy frequently employed was to criticize not
the leading authority—Aristotle or Galen or Ptolemy—but later scholars
disseminating distorted knowledge. This possibility of expressing tentative
critique against authorities in early modern times was also employed by

11.

“[……] in tam vasto librorum oceano, quibus studiosorum ingenia perturbantur,
fatiganturque; quibus ineptioribus, vulgus et homines importunissimi inebriantur, delir-
ant, inﬂantur, et tumultus faciunt literarios, seque philosophos, medicos, mathematicos,
astrologos proﬁtentur, et viros doctos negligunt, contemnuntque.”

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
p
哦
s
C
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

3
0
6
9
2
5
2
0
5
9
5
3
2
p
哦
s
C
_
A
_
0
0
5
6
4
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

940

Gilbert’s Use of Experiment

伽利略 ([1632] 1998, 卷. 1, 54; see Danneberg 2009, PP. 330–49; 的
Angelis 2010). The argumentum ab auctoritate itself usually still held power
(布莱尔 2006; Danneberg 2003, PP. 162–72; Danneberg 2009).

A closer look at the De magnete shows us Gilbert’s relationship with
authorities as somewhat more differentiated than the tone of the preface
might suggest. The very end of the author’s preface includes an attempt
to redeem ancient writers, at least to some extent, as they stem from a dis-
tant world and had a different background and knowledge:

Those ancient men, almost the ﬁrst parents of philosophy, Aristotle,
Theophrastus, Ptolemy, Hippocrates, Galen, should ever be
honoured as those, from whom knowledge descended to later
几代人; but our era brought forth and to light many things
which they would have gladly embraced had they still been among
我们. (吉尔伯特 1600, 遵循. iiir)12

Naturally, even scholars as bold as Gilbert had to ground their findings in
already established knowledge. Lengthy parts of the De magnete are cen-
tered around the ﬁndings of his predecessors, the ﬁrst book even creating
a short historical overview of such investigations. Numerous properties of
the lodestone described within the work were taken from Petrus Peregrinus’
thirteenth century Epistola de magnete (香脂 1956, PP. 243–77). 吉尔伯特
heavily used text on nautical problems and instruments to solve them,
例如, Robert Norman’s New Attractive, sometimes openly acknowledging
this debt to them, other times silently (Zilsel 1941; Pumfrey 2002,
PP. 173–81; 科恩 2010, PP. 149–250). 此外, Gilbert’s theories
sometimes depend on the opinions and systems of those schools he criticized.
This concerns mostly notions and concepts, where he makes use of Peripatetic
theories as well as Paracelsian and even Neo-Platonic thinking (Zilsel
1941, PP. 3–7; Freudenthal 1983; 亨利 2001).

Even considering these limitations and Gilbert’s dependence on
ancient, medieval, and early modern thinkers, the explicit rejection of
authority and especially the condemnation of the scholastics of the univer-
sities and all those who trust in book knowledge alone is striking. 他
essentially ridiculed written knowledge, celebrated the new age and its
创新, and stated that he laid his trust only in empirical investiga-
系统蒸发散, largely his own demonstrations and experiments. These statements
do not reﬂect Gilbert’s scientiﬁc work in full, as he does quite naturally

12.

“Priscis illis et quasi primis philosophiae parentibus Aristoteli, Theophrasto,
Ptolemaeo, Hippocrati, Galeno suus semper honos tribuatur, a quibus dimanavit sapientia
ad posteros; sed aetas nostra plurima detexit et in lucem attulit, quae illi etiam si viverent
libenter amplecterentur.”

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
p
哦
s
C
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

3
0
6
9
2
5
2
0
5
9
5
3
2
p
哦
s
C
_
A
_
0
0
5
6
4
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

科学观点

941

depend on the knowledge of others but represent his rhetorical aims to
construct a persuasive image: Apart from employing persuasive non-
artistic proof in the form of experimenta, the Royal physician also exercised
great effort to use another mode of persuasion according to Aristotelian
修辞, which gained importance in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century
natural philosophy: ethos (Arist. Rhet. 1.2.4; 2.12–17 [Aristotle 1959]) 或者
the self-fashioning of the scientist (Dear 1985, 1991, p. 162; Luggin
2021). To make their hypotheses, 信仰, and conclusions persuasive, early
modern scholars—similar to modern ones, for that matter—had to do
more than skillfully formulate strong arguments. Not only the case at
手, the scientiﬁc problem, had to be presented as artfully as possible,
it became more and more important to also promote the person behind
the cause, the natural philosopher, his character, and reputation. Stressing
the ﬂawless character of the scientist also elevated the value of his work, 作为
it built trust in the reader in the author’s professional competence on the
one hand and his faithfulness on the other. How could someone presented as
an honest, 道德, and hard-working person show the reader anything else
than what he thought of as the truth of the matter? The credibility of the
scientist thus depended to a large extent also on the display of his ethos,
something which was clear to an early modern author after his usually
extensive rhetorical training (Lausberg 2008, p. 141; Steel 2009, p. 81).
The spectrum of possibilities for self-fashioning at the time ranged from
stressing one’s personal and professional integrity and virtues or giving the
appearance of neutrality and objectivity to the promise of presenting some-
thing wondrous and not heard or seen before (Jardine 1991; Serjeantson
2006, PP. 147–48). Apart from extra-textual possibilities, such as the net-
work of the scientist, his patrons, his general social and political status, 这
role of scientiﬁc academies and societies, and the book market, there were
plenty of places inside an early modern work to construct one’s ethos: title
页面, paratexts, 图片, and charts, as well as the main text. In an analogy
to the exordium of ancient speeches, paratexts—the preface, letter to the
reader, prefatory poems, an introduction—were the ideal place for this
(肯尼迪 1994, PP. 58–9; Lausberg 2008, p. 141; Vermij 2011). 早期的
modern natural philosophers used the opportunities to present themselves
as competent, 可靠的, 任劳任怨, virtuous scholars, sometimes put-
ting themselves in a tradition of authoritative scientists, other times jux-
taposing their own accomplishments to those of earlier scholars (Steel
2009, p. 81). Many titles of early modern scientiﬁc works speak of the
virtues, 知识, or dignity of its authors, qualities that are repeated
in congratulatory or panegyric poetry written by colleagues, patrons,
朋友们, and dignitaries at the beginning of the works, testifying to the
scientiﬁc, 政治的, and social network of the author, showing their

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
p
哦
s
C
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

3
0
6
9
2
5
2
0
5
9
5
3
2
p
哦
s
C
_
A
_
0
0
5
6
4
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

942

Gilbert’s Use of Experiment

symbolic capital and thus presenting them as competent and trustworthy
(Enenkel 2015; Luggin 2021).

Gilbert consequently combined his presentation of empirical, seemingly
objective knowledge, with an effort to display himself as a competent,
值得信赖的, and reliable natural philosopher, who spared neither trouble
nor expense to uncover the secrets of nature. One element of this self-
representation could be the dedication of the book to a powerful patron
(Bossuyt et al. 2008). 有趣的是, Gilbert’s work does not have a
dedication—and as physician of Queen Elizabeth and President of the Col-
lege of Physicians it should not have been too difﬁcult to obtain a dedica-
tee. The De magnete also does not contain panegyric prefatory poetry as was
customary at the time (Enenkel 2015). It is presented as a simple, straight-
向前, technical work, with an unadorned title page, a preface by the
作者, and a letter of commendation by Gilbert’s student Edward Wright.
One can speculate about the reasons for this lack of common paratexts: 做过
Gilbert want to break with another tradition? Did he not want to mention
other scholars besides himself?

In a quote already analyzed above, Gilbert speaks of his ideal readers as
the sole dedicatees (Sed vobis tantum vere philosophantibus [……] fundamenta ista
magnetica commendavi, 吉尔伯特 1600, 遵循. iiv). Several pages later, at the end
of the ﬁrst chapter of Book I, the author harshly criticized contemporary
学者, who only paraphrased or even misused the works of others, 使用
the names and power of patrons to inﬂuence their unsuspecting readers
(吉尔伯特 1600, p. 8).

As his own book does not contain a dedicatory letter to a patron but
instead a letter recommending himself, written by a colleague and student
of his, we can argue that Gilbert aimed to turn the usual hierarchy around,
breaking with just another literary tradition. It seems that he decided not
to make use of the common practice of dedication, patronage, and pane-
gyric paratexts, not to include topical paratextual instruments into his
innovatively presented physiology. 反而, Gilbert put his readers and,
most of all himself, again into the center of attention, without adopting
the practices of eulogy, which could have made him suspect of using the
same techniques as those adhering to authorial book knowledge and
scholastic speculation. As Gilbert aimed to make his De magnete a sharp
caesura in natural philosophy, he might have chosen to deviate from his
forerunners in terms of presenting his work as well as his ethos.

A pirated second edition of Gilbert’s work, printed in 1628, used the
traditional construction of ethos through a beautifully adorned title page
and added poetry lauding the author (吉尔伯特 1628; 见图. 6). Addition-
盟友, this edition did not include Gilbert’s system of asterisks, 虽然
it maintained Gilbert’s reference to and explanation of it in the preface

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
p
哦
s
C
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

3
0
6
9
2
5
2
0
5
9
5
3
2
p
哦
s
C
_
A
_
0
0
5
6
4
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

科学观点

943

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
p
哦
s
C
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

3
0
6
9
2
5
2
0
5
9
5
3
2
p
哦
s
C
_
A
_
0
0
5
6
4
p
d

数字 6. Title page of the second, pirated edition of Gilbert’s De magnete, 这里
called Tractatus sive physiologia nova, edited by Wolfgang Lochmann and printed
with an intricate engraving, showing illustrations from the monograph as well as
highlighting the close connection with navigation. 吉尔伯特 1628.
Universitätsbibliothek Erfurt, 13 – Np. 8° 01053.

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

944

Gilbert’s Use of Experiment

(遵循. A1v), but it provided marginal notes summarizing the content of par-
agraphs and chapters. While Gilbert himself deliberately did not make use
of these common devices, we can speculate that by the end of the 1620s
his work had been established as an authority on magnetism as well as on
empirical investigation, so the publisher saw no need to refuse the tradi-
tional means of constructing his ethos, essentially contradicting the author’s
original intention.

What Gilbert did to present himself as an expert scientist, 而不是
using patronage and authority through paratext, was time and again,
throughout the entire work, to underline his arduous, time-consuming,
as well as expensive work over many years to obtain the conclusions he
could safely present as reliable and veriﬁable hypotheses and results. 这
two-and-a-half-page preface alone is full of self-fashioning that stated how
Gilbert had with great care worked day and night on his research, 然后
he experimented daily, so that he would make new, outstanding, 和
unprecedented ﬁndings (吉尔伯特 1600, 遵循. Iir).13 He strove to make sure
that his readers would see how many investigations he conducted himself
and how much effort, 睡觉, and money it all cost him, and that he did not
present anything in his book that he had not himself investigated over and
超过 (吉尔伯特 1600, 遵循. Iiv).14

Throughout the text, Gilbert continued to make explicit statements
and presented his knowledge, 实验, and conclusions, showing his
efforts in providing precise, trustworthy information on the physical, tech-
nical, and cosmological aspects of magnetism. This is underlined by his
strategy to frequently not acknowledge his debt whenever he adopted
信息, 方法, or conclusions from other scholars. This certainly
was in line with Gilbert’s strategy of constructing his ethos as the new
authority on magnetism, while largely rejecting the opinion of others.

Trust No One but Gilbert

3.
We can conclude that Gilbert’s attempts at persuasion, at deconstructing
old and installing new authority, used a threefold strategy. 第一的, he men-
tioned as many experimenta as possible as cumulative evidence, highlighting
them in a completely new strategy with asterisks throughout the work and

13.

“In magnetis viribus perquirendis [……] diutinam multamque curam adhibuimus.
Neque hunc nostrum laborem inertem, et infrugiferum invenimus; cum nobis quotidie
experiendo, novae et inauditae proprietates elucerent”.

“Videant tamen experimentorum et inventorum [……] magnam frequentiam: quae
multis nostris curis, vigiliis, et impensis eruta et demonstrata sunt; nihil enim in istis libris
depromptum, quod non exploratum, saepissimeque actum et transactum apud nos fuerit”.

14.

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
p
哦
s
C
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

3
0
6
9
2
5
2
0
5
9
5
3
2
p
哦
s
C
_
A
_
0
0
5
6
4
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

科学观点

945

using other strategies to make them more persuasive—emphasizing the
frequency of experiments, of repetition of the same trial, 概括化
事件, providing instructions for replications or adaptations, or mention-
ing methodological issues. These are important strategies to make the use
of experiments within argumentation effective as numerous attempts over
the seventeenth century would show. The isolated instance of one empir-
ical investigation could thus qualify as a statement of truth and not simply
a description of one particular occurrence (Dear 1985, 1991, p. 162).
Though the impersonal style of many of Gilbert’s accounts deprived the
reader of details of the operation, or could prevent repetition of the prac-
泰斯, this did not detract from the force of the work’s display of substantial
and unprecedented empirical knowledge (坎宁安 2001).

第二, Gilbert fashioned himself as a hardworking, devoted scientist,
who spared neither effort nor trouble to get to the secrets lying behind
things thus far hidden. Reading his work, the reader is confronted with
this presentation of the scholar’s ethos repeatedly, from the title page, 这
unusual paratexts, and the recurrent mentions in the preface to numerous
passages within Gilbert’s text. Even though he delivered many experi-
ments in an impersonal style, the author made it a point that the reader
would never forget who instructed him on the properties of magnets and
why his instructor was qualiﬁed to do so. He did so, 然而, in a way
which must have been surprising to his readers, considering his rejection
of traditional paratextual strategies. Gilbert showed his awareness of the
rhetorical devices that were usually employed in paratexts, but he did
not himself make use of them to distance himself even more from previous
authorities and contemporary scholars. The exceptional way of marking
experiments with asterisks, which has no apparent parallel in earlier or
contemporary writing, also served as a rejection of textual authorities. 在
his effort to replace textbook knowledge with empirical knowledge, 这
was just another innovative device to deconstruct authorities.

最后, Gilbert dismissed written authorities, ancient, medieval, 和,
most harshly, contemporary, and those who trust them implicitly. He pur-
posely concealed the inﬂuence of other scholars on his reasoning and his
dependence on both Aristotelian and Neo-Platonic thinking. 反而, 他
presented not only a “new way of philosophizing,” but also a new authority
on magnetism. All these efforts should ultimately convince his readers to
place their trust solely in one person, the author of the physiologia nova.

参考
Akopyan, Ovanes. 2019. “Francesco Patrizi da Cherso (1529–1597): 新的
Perspectives on a Renaissance Philosopher.” Intellectual History Review
29: 541–543. https://doi.org/10.1080/17496977.2019.1653654

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
p
哦
s
C
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

3
0
6
9
2
5
2
0
5
9
5
3
2
p
哦
s
C
_
A
_
0
0
5
6
4
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

946

Gilbert’s Use of Experiment

Aristotle. 1959. Ars Rhetorica. Edited by David Ross. 牛津: Oxford Uni-

大学出版社.

香脂, Heinz. 1956. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Erkenntnis des Erdmagnetismus.
Aarau: Sauerländer. https://doi.org/10.1163/22977953-0130102005
布莱尔, 安. 2006. “Natural Philosophy.” Pp. 365–405 in The Cambridge
History of Science. 卷. 3: Early Modern Science. Edited by Katharine Park
and Lorraine Daston. 剑桥: 剑桥大学出版社. https://
doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521572446.018

布鲁姆, 保罗·R. 2012. Giordano Bruno: 一个介绍. Amsterdam and New

约克: 罗多彼. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789401208291

Bossuyt, Ignace et al. 2008. “Cui Dono Lepidum Novum Libellum?” Dedicating
Latin Works and Motets in the Sixteenth Century. Leuven: Leuven University
按. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt9qdwp8

Cardano, Girolamo. 1550. De subtilitate libri XXI. Nuremberg: Petri.
科恩, 我. 伯恩哈德. 1985. Revolution in Science. 剑桥, 嘛: Belknap

按.

科恩, H. Floris. 2010. How Modern Science Came into the World. Four Civ-
ilizations, One 17th-Century Breakthrough. 阿姆斯特丹: Amsterdam Uni-
大学出版社.

坎宁安, 理查德. 2001. “Virtual Witnessing and the Role of the
Reader in a New Natural Philosophy.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 34:
207–224. https://doi.org/10.1353/par.2001.0013

Dana, 詹姆斯·D. 1837. A System of Mineralogy: Including an Extended Treatise

on Crystallography. 新天堂: Durrie & Peck.

Danneberg, Lutz. 2003. Säkularisierung in den Wissenschaften seit der Frühen
Neuzeit. 卷. 3: Die Anatomie des Text-Körpers und Natur-Körpers: Das Lesen
im liber naturalis und supernaturalis. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110896244

Danneberg, Lutz. 2009. “Kontrafaktische Imaginationen in der Herme-
neutik und in der Lehre des Testimoniums.” Pp. 287–449 in Begriffe,
Metaphern und Imaginationen in Philosophie und Wissenschaftsgeschichte. Edited
by Lutz Danneberg. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Daujat, 让. 1945. Origines et formation de la théorie des phénomènes électriques

et magnétiques. 卷. 2. 巴黎: Hermann.

De Angelis, Simone. 2010. Anthropologien. Genese und Konﬁguration einer
‘Wissenschaft vom Menschen’ in der Frühen Neuzeit. Berlin and New York:
De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110217353

Dear, 彼得. 1985. “Totius in Verba: Rhetoric and Authority in the Early
Royal Society.” Isis 76: 145–161. https://doi.org/10.1086/353797
Dear, 彼得. 1991. “Narratives, Anecdotes, and Experiments: Turning
Experience into Science in the Seventeenth Century.” Pp. 135–163 in
The Literary Structure of Scientiﬁc Argument. Historical Studies. Edited by

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
p
哦
s
C
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

3
0
6
9
2
5
2
0
5
9
5
3
2
p
哦
s
C
_
A
_
0
0
5
6
4
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

科学观点

947

Peter Dear. 宾夕法尼亚州: University of Pennsylvania Press. https://土井
.org/10.9783/9781512801590-007

Dear, 彼得. 2006. “The Meanings of Experience.” Pp. 106–131 in The
Cambridge History of Science. 卷. 3: Early Modern Science. Edited by
Katharine Park and Lorraine Daston. 剑桥: 剑桥大学-
城市出版社. https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521572446.005

Della Porta, Giambattista. 1558. Magia naturalis sive de miraculis rerum nat-

uralium libri IV. Naples: Mattia Cancer.

Enenkel, Karl. 2015. Die Stiftung von Autorschaft in der neulateinischen Lit-
eratur (加州. 1350–ca. 1650). Zur autorisierenden und wissensvermittelnden
Funktion von Widmungen, Vorworttexten, Autorporträts und Dedikationsbil-
dern. Leiden: Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004278455

Freudenthal, Gad. 1983. “Theory of Matter and Cosmology in William
Gilbert’s De magnete.” Isis 74: 22–37. https://doi.org/10.1086/353174
Galilei, 伽利略. [1632] 1998. Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo
tolemaico e copernicano. Edited by Ottavio Besomi and Mario Helbing. 2 卷.
Padua: Antenore.

Garzoni, 列奥纳多. 2005. Trattati della calamità. Edited by Monica Ugaglia.

米兰: 佛朗哥·安杰利.

Georgescu, Laura. 2013. “One Experiment, Different Uses: Floating Mag-
netic Bodies in Peregrinus, Norman and Gilbert.” Journal of Early Modern
学习 2: 81–103. https://doi.org/10.7761/JEMS.2.1.81

吉尔伯特, 威廉. 1600. Guilielmi Gilberti Colcestrensis, medici Londinensis, 的
magnete magneticisque corporibus et de magno magnete tellure physiologia nova
plurimis et argumentis et experimentis demonstrate. 伦敦: Short. https://土井
.org/10.5479/sil.113709.39088016899940

吉尔伯特, 威廉. 1628. Tractatus sive physiologia nova de magnete, magneti-
cisque corporibus et magno magnete tellure sex libris comprehensus. Edited by
Wolfgang Lochmann. Rostock: Hallervord.

吉尔伯特, 威廉. 1629. Guilelmi Gilberti medici Angli de magnete magneti-
cisque corporibus, vi euis attractive et medicinali proprietate, motionibus, usuque
et directione [……], 编辑. Wolfgang Lochmann. 法兰克福: Fitzer.

金格里奇, 欧文. 1989. “Johannes Kepler.” Pp. 54–78 in The General
History of Astronomy. 卷. 2.1. Edited by René Taton and Curtis Wilson.
剑桥: 剑桥大学出版社.

Heilbron, John L. 1979. Electricity in the 17th and 18th Centuries: A Study of
Early Modern Physics. 伯克利: University of California Press. https://土井
.org/10.1525/9780520334601

亨利, 约翰. 2001. “Animism and Empiricism: Copernican Physics
and the Origins of William Gilbert’s Experimental Method.” Journal
思想史 62: 99–119. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhi.2001
.0004

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
p
哦
s
C
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

3
0
6
9
2
5
2
0
5
9
5
3
2
p
哦
s
C
_
A
_
0
0
5
6
4
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

948

Gilbert’s Use of Experiment

Hesse M. 乙. 1960A. “Gilbert and the Historians (我).” The British Journal
for the Philosophy of Science 11: 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/XI
.41.1

Hesse M. 乙. 1960乙. “Gilbert and the Historians (二).” The British Journal
for the Philosophy of Science 11: 130–142. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps
/XI.42.130

Jardine, 尼古拉斯. 1991. “Demonstration, Dialectic, and Rhetoric in
Galileo’s Dialogue.” Pp. 101–121 in The Shapes of Knowledge from the
Renaissance to the Enlightenment. Edited by Donald R. Kelley and Richard
H. Popkin. 多德雷赫特: Kluwer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011
-3238-1_7

肯尼迪, George A. 1994. A New History of Classical Rhetoric. 普林斯顿大学,

新泽西州: 普林斯顿大学出版社.

Knox, Dilwyn. 2018. “Giordano Bruno.” In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philos-
奥菲 (冬天 2018 版). Edited by Edward N. Zalta et al. https://
plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2018/entries/bruno/ (30.12.2018)

Lackey, Jennifer, and Sosa, 欧内斯特, 编辑. 2006. The Epistemology of Testimony.
牛津: 牛津大学出版社. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso
/9780199276011.001.0001

Lausberg, Heinrich. 2008. Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik: Eine Grundlegung

der Literaturwissenschaft. 4th edn. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.

Luggin, Johanna. 2021. “Philosophia naturalis: Ancient Rhetoric and
Early Modern Science.” In Brill’s Companion to the Reception of Ancient
Rhetoric. Edited by Sophia Papaioannou, Andreas Seraﬁm, 和迈克尔
爱德华兹. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 即将推出.

Mack, 彼得. 2011. A History of Renaissance Rhetoric 1380–1620. 牛津:
牛津大学出版社. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:osobl
/9780199597284.001.0001

Norman, 罗伯特. 1581. The Newe Attractive: Showing the Nature, Propertie,

and Manifold Vertues of the Loadstone. 伦敦: Kingston.

Pliny the Elder. 1906. Naturalis Historia. Edited by Karl Friedrich Theodor

Mayhoff. 莱比锡: Teubner.

Pumfrey, 斯蒂芬. 1987. “William Gilbert’s Magnetic Philosophy,

1580–1684: The Creation and Dissolution of a Discipline.” Ph.D.
dissertation. 伦敦: 伦敦大学.

Pumfrey, 斯蒂芬. 2000. “Gilbert, William.” Pp. 266–268 in Encyclopedia
of the Scientiﬁc Revolution from Copernicus to Newton. Edited by William
Applebaum. New York and London: Garland.

Pumfrey, 斯蒂芬. 2002. Latitude and the Magnetic Earth. 剑桥: Icon

图书.

Roller, Duane H. D. 1959. The ‘De Magnete’ of William Gilbert. 阿姆斯特丹:

Hertzberger.

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
p
哦
s
C
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

3
0
6
9
2
5
2
0
5
9
5
3
2
p
哦
s
C
_
A
_
0
0
5
6
4
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

科学观点

949

Sander, Christoph. 2020. Magnes: Der Magnetstein und der Magnetismus in
den Wissenschaften der Frühen Neuzeit. Leiden and Boston: Brill. https://
doi.org/10.1163/9789004419414

Schickore, Jutta. 2010. “Trying Again and Again: Multiple Repetitions in
Early Modern Reports of Experiments on Snake Bites.” Early Science and
药品 15: 567–617. https://doi.org/10.1163/157338210X526629
Serjeantson, Richard W. 2006. “Proof and Persuasion.” Pp. 132–175 in
The Cambridge History of Science. 卷. 3: Early Modern Science. Edited by
Katharine Park and Lorraine Daston. 剑桥: 剑桥大学-
城市出版社. https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521572446.006

Shapin, Steven, and Simon Schaffer. 1985. Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes,
Boyle, and the Experimental Life. 普林斯顿大学, 新泽西州: 普林斯顿大学出版社.
Steel, Catherine. 2009. “Divisions of Speech.” Pp. 77–91 in The Cambridge
Companion to Ancient Rhetoric. Edited by Erik Gunderson. 剑桥:
剑桥大学出版社. https://doi.org/10.1017/CCOL9780521860543
.006

Steinle, 弗里德里希. 2016. “Stability and Replication of Experimental
结果: A Historical Perspective.” Pp. 39–63 in Reproducibility: Princi-
普莱斯, 问题, Practices, and Prospects. Edited by Harald Atmanspacher
and Sabine Maasen. 霍博肯, 新泽西州: Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org
/10.1002/9781118865064.ch3

Thorndike, 林恩. 1951. “Newness and Craving for Novelty in
Seventeenth-Century Science and Medicine.” Journal of the History of
Ideas 12: 584–598. https://doi.org/10.2307/2707487

Ugaglia, 莫妮卡. 2006. “The Science of Magnetism before Gilbert Leonardo
Garzoni’s Treatise on the Loadstone.” Annals of Science 63: 59–84. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00033790500405185

Vasoli, Cesare. 1989. Francesco Patrizi da Cherso. 罗马: Bulzoni.
Vermij, Rienk. 2011. “The Light of Nature and the Allegorisation of Sci-
ence on Dutch Frontispieces Around 1700.” Netherlands Yearbook for
History of Art 61: 208–237. https://doi.org/10.1163/22145966
-90000773