Philip II a patron of the sciences? This aspect of his turbulent reign, like many others, bas brought conflicting assessments. He bas been praised for his enterprise and blamed for isolating Spain from the scientific revolution. More information has now become available as a resuit of research on related themes, and it seems opportune to reconsider Philip's relations with the sciences. This has not attracted much attention outside of Spain because of the general neglect of the history of Spanish science. Yet Spain was no intellectual backwater—it had a rich scientific culture which was still alive in the sixteenth century. And the question of Philip's patronage is important since Castile had become the heart of the most powerful empire in the West at a time when Europe was experiencing a new phase of the Reformation and the beginnings of scientific revolution.

In spite of vigorous opposition by a number of historians it has now become a commonplace that the rapid development of the ‘new philosophy’ sprang from the ideology of Puritanism. What began its career as the ‘Merton thesis’ has now been refined, developed, and so often repeated that it seems to be almost unassailable. However, the two foremost historians in the entrenchment of this new orthodoxy are willing, in principle, to concede that ‘in reality things were very mixed up’, and that non-Puritan natural philosophers at the time were operating ‘in a precisely similar manner’ to their Puritan contemporaries. Indeed, it would be impossible not to concede this in the face of the many critiques launched against the Merton thesis.

The sciences of ethology and sociobiology have as premisses that certain dispositions and behavioural patterns have evolved with species and, therefore, that the acts of individual animals and men must be viewed in light of innate determinates. These ideas are much older than the now burgeoning disciplines of the biology of behaviour. Their elements were fused in the early constructions of evolutionary theory, and they became integral parts of the developing conception. Historians, however, have usually neglected close examination of the role behaviour has played in the rise of evolutionary thought.

Science historians need two major kinds of literary resources, old books, journals, patents, plans and other documents from which to quarry their facts, and critical tools such as histories of science, bibliographies and biographies. Provision of the second category needs positive planning; the first is often itself an accident of local history. Among the factors which have shaped Newcastle upon Tyne may be numbered a Roman river crossing, a Norman castle, mediaeval walls, powerful charters granted by Tudor and Stuart monarchs, a favourable site in a coalfield, and a phenomenal succession of inventive entrepreneurs in mining, chemicals, shipbuilding, and mechanical and electrical engineering. Its scientific and cultural institutions (see Table) are of respectable maturity, and in addition the town possessed by 1815 several chapel and meeting-house libraries, a newsroom and subscription library in the Assembly Rooms together with three circulating libraries run by prominent booksellers. Present resources are concentrated in six organizations, with two more in the near future.