ABSTRACT
At this point we need to return to the question of responsibility for the components of the print. As we have seen, there can be no doubt that Evelyn was responsible for its overall composition, though Beale’s prompting may have played a subordinate role. On the other hand, when it comes to details, two points need to be made. The fi rst is that, although the evidence surveyed in chapter 2 shows that when Evelyn prepared the design he intended it for Beale’s project rather than Sprat’s, the letter from Beale of 29 April 1667 discussed at the end of that chapter – together with the fact that the plate is actually dated 1667 – means that it is conceivable that it was only etched after the idea had been suggested of transferring it to Sprat’s History . Hence, just as the ‘particulars’ of the society’s scientifi c work that appeared in Sprat’s book evidently owed something to the input of the society’s organisers, this could also be true of the specimens of scientifi c apparatus and other accoutrements shown in the frontispiece: it is therefore not surprising that, as we will see in chapter 5 , certain of the instruments that are depicted relate to projects that are divulged in Sprat’s text. On the other hand, this is not exclusive of Evelyn having a particularly prominent role in deciding just what should be shown, so what we know of his views on such matters also needs to be canvassed.
