Catalogue Entry: OTHE00017

^[1] Hawking (1988), p. 4.

^[2] William Warburton to Stukeley, 10 February 1733, Nichols (1817), Vol. 2, p. 21.

^[3] John Craig to John Conduitt, 7 April 1727, Keynes MS 132.

^[4] Mead to Stukeley, 4 April 1727, Bod. MS Eng. misc. c. 114, f. 50.

^[5] Stukeley, Royal Society MS 142, f. 67.

^[6] Keynes MS 136, Stukeley to John Conduitt, 15 July 1727.

^[7] Roy. Soc. MS 142 f.14. See Hall (1999), pp. 13-34.

^[8] Mead to Stukeley, 4 April 1727, Bod. MS Eng. misc. c. 114, f. 50.

^[9] Roy. Soc. MS 142 f. 54.

^[10] King's College, Cambridge, Keynes MS 136, January 1728.

^[11] Keynes MS 136, marginal note by Mead added to Stukeley's letters sent, via him, to Conduitt in July 1727.

^[12] Two drafts of Stukeley's biography survive, one in the archives of the Royal Society of London (MS 142), the other at Grantham Public Library. An edition of the Royal Society version of the biography was published in 1936 as Memoirs of Sir Isaac Newton's Life, edited by A. Hastings White, but is not wholly faithful to its source.

^[13] Hall (1999) p. 7.

^[14] Newton (1729), unpaginated 'Author's Preface'.

^[15] Desaguliers A Course of Experimental Philosophy, Vol. I (1734), quoted in Iliffe (1995), p. 160. The first edition of Opticks (1704) contained sixteen queries, seven were added to the Latin edition of 1706, and eight to the second English edition (1718). Query 23 in the 1706 edition became Query 31 after the addition of eight new queries to the 1718 edition.

^[16] Stukeley FM MS 1130 Stu (1) f. 179.

^[17] Bod. MS Eng. misc. c. 323 f. 81.

^[18] Daniel Defoe, A Tour Through the Whole Island of Great Britain, quoted in Hayman (1997), 74. In their enthusiasm though the antiquarians were sometimes too eager to see what was not really there.

^[19] See Ucko et al (1991), p. 56.

^[20] Horsley (1732), Preface, p. iii.

^[21] Stukeley, SS 2, p. 71.

^[22] Piggott (1985), p. 89.

^[23] For example, the suggestion made in the first edition of the biography that Stukeley had suffered a mental breakdown akin to the one also attributed to Newton was dropped in the second edition. In the 'Preface to the Revised Edition' Piggott noted that his first book 'represented something of a pioneering effort' , with the subsequent thirty years 'seeing the picture of British history within which William Stukeley's work needs to be assessed' changing 'beyond recognition.' Piggott (1985), p. 7.

^[24] Piggott (1935), p. 22.

^[25] Hayman (1997), p. 142,

^[26] Ucko et al (1991), p. 54; whilst Avebury Reconsidered was a collaborative project, Michael Hunter was responsible for the material on the antiquarian background and Stukeley's intellectual evolution; Hunter had previously questioned the existence of such a dichotomy in Stukeley's work, see Hunter (1971), p. 190.

^[27] Piggott (1986), and Ucko et al, 'Acknowledgements', p. xiii.

^[28] For a valuable recent re-evaluation of antiquarianism in this period, see the essays collected in Myrone and Peltz (1999), and in particular their preface.

^[29] Bacon, The first book, I.3.

^[30] Warburton to Stukeley, 1 January 1740, in Nichols (1817), p. 53.

^[31] Roger Gale to Stukeley, 30 June 1730, in SS 1, p. 327.

^[32] Stukeley, 'Disquisitio de Deo. Or an Enquiry into the Nature of the DEITY'. Bod. MS Eng. misc. e. 650. The dedication appears to be God Himself.

^[33] Stukeley, FM MS Stu 1130 (1) ff. 1-2.

^[34] Two interesting recent essays have addressed this problem, Stewart (1996) and Pfizenmaier (1997).

^[35] Stukeley to Roger Gale, 25 June 1730, in SS 3, p. 267.

^[36] See for example Piggott (1950) and (1985), Owen (1962), Ucko et al (1991), Hayman (1997).