Eric H. Ash. Power, Knowledge and Expertise in Elizabethan England. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004. ix + 265 pp. $45.00 (cloth), ISBN 978-0-8018-7992-0.

Reviewed by Michael Hunter (School of History, Classics and Archaeology, Birkbeck, University of London)
Published on H-Albion (June, 2006)

Tudor Pioneers

This book provides a clearly written and helpful account of the way in which applied knowledge was valued and promoted in Tudor England, combining perceptive case studies with broader reflections. It opens with an account of the conscious effort to focus resources on the navy which forms the background to the Armada campaign, as an index of the way in which expertise became more highly valued by the Elizabethan government. We then have two lengthy case studies, one of the relations between German mining technologists and their English partners in exploiting copper mines in Cumberland, the other of the lengthy negotiations which preceded the building of a new harbor at Dover in the 1580s. Then, there is a chapter on the increasing importance of mathematical knowledge in piloting ships in the period, in contrast to the traditional reliance on dead reckoning, and another on the navigational manuals that were published at the time. Ash takes a series of these and looks at their rationale, finding that some were aimed at seamen and others with little expertise, while others were aimed at the peers of their authors. Lastly, there is a chapter which, after an account of current thinking on the evolution of Bacon's ideas, argues that many of the key themes in his message had precedents in the Elizabethan period.

The overall thesis of the book is that, in this period, there was an increasing role for those claiming "expertise," for men who, by arguing that they understood the principles underlying the practical problems that miners, navigators and others confronted, were in a position to act as mediators between those who actually executed such tasks and those who patronized them. This the author rightly links with the valuation of useful knowledge among humanist educators, and he sees it as being promoted particularly by patrons anxious for reliable investment opportunities and government ministers in need of arbitration. In fact, the story he tells contains as many failures as successes. Stephen Borough's idea that he might establish a monopoly on naval education by being made "chief pilot of this our realm of England" (p. 122) failed to materialize, while in the case of Dover harbor the fact that ultimately the most effective mode of construction was adopted on the basis of local expertise is in many ways less striking than the fact that this occurred only after several thousand pounds had been frittered away on schemes which commended themselves largely by their cheapness.

On the other hand, as Ash points out, the claim to expertise was slightly insidious, and does seem to have given "experts" a role which enabled them to override the views of unlearned craftsmen. Even when they did not do so explicitly, their tendency to "black box" information--to provide the results of calculations even when also indicating how these might be carried out--had a similar effect. Moreover the effect of this was divisive, and he takes issue with the view of E.G.R. Taylor that there was a community of "mathematical practitioners" (pp. 140-1) at the time which was implicitly homogeneous: in fact, as he makes clear, the new breed of theorists were at odds with the practical men.

As for the claim that Bacon as the heir to the ambitions of the Elizabethans, this is highly plausible, but leaves one with something of a sense of déjà vu. After all, this is precisely the kind of claim that was made by an older generation of U.S. scholars like F.R. Johnson, R.F. Jones and P.H. Kocher in books published on either side of the Second World War, which were given a new lease of life by being reissued in the 1960s. For instance, F.R. Johnson wrote: "most of the fruitful ideals of science that are popularly associated with the work of Francis Bacon and the seventeenth century were already part of the publicly avowed creed of the English scientific workers throughout the latter half of the sixteenth century."[1]

Yet Ash shows no awareness of their work at all. In general, his citations are full as far as the relevant secondary literature is concerned (though for some reason he cites none of the profuse secondary literature available on John Dee). He even has an "Essay on Sources," which gives a good sense both of newer and older literature on many aspects of his subject, especially mining and navigation, while also surveying the literature on the history of Elizabethan government and politics. The absence of any reference to older studies like those of Johnson, Jones, and Kocher which make some of the same claims as he does therefore seems all the more anomalous--a surprising flaw in an otherwise useful and well-executed book.

Note

[1]. F.R. Johnson, Astronomical Thought in Renaissance England (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1937; reprint, New York: Octagon Books, 1968), p. 296.

If there is additional discussion of this review, you may access it through the network, at: https://networks.h-net.org/h-albion.

Citation: Michael Hunter. Review of Ash, Eric H., Power, Knowledge and Expertise in Elizabethan England. H-Albion, H-Net Reviews. June, 2006.
URL: http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=11831

Copyright © 2006 by H-Net, all rights reserved. H-Net permits the redistribution and reprinting of this work for nonprofit, educational purposes, with full and accurate attribution to the author, web location, date of publication, originating list, and H-Net: Humanities & Social Sciences Online. For any other proposed use, contact the Reviews editorial staff at hbooks@mail.h-net.org.