Samuel Hartlib's Information Factory: Form, Function, and the Circulation of Knowledge

In 1636, the educational reformer Jan Amos Comenius jotted down his ideas on universal knowledge, and sent a rough draft to a friend in order to get his advice.  After several months of silence, he received a box containing copies of a pamphlet – lo and behold, it was his own.  In 1638, the mathematician John Pell was writing a treatise on the methodizing of mathematical knowledge, but did not deem it ready for publication – so he sent it to a friend for advice. Soon, an anonymous tract began making the rounds of the republic of letters.  It was Pell's, and he was forced to reveal himself as its author.  In 1645, the Hebrew scholar Dorothy Moore wrote a series of letters examining the implications of marriage for brothers and sisters in Christ.  Before sending them to her correspondent, she first sent them to friend.  Lo and behold, her "undigested" words began making the rounds as a published pamphlet.

Each of these scholars had sent their material to the same friend – the intelligencer Samuel Hartlib.  All were highly annoyed at having their work rushed into print.  Yet these three scholars, and scores of others, would continue sending their work to Hartlib, knowing that the fate of their words lay in his hands.  Their texts might be excerpted, copied, circulated, or stored.  They might be translated, annotated, collated, or printed.  And in whatever form they took, they would most likely emerge under the name of "Hartlib." 

Hartlib's network functioned as an information factory in the republic of letters, and his name became its corporate intellectual brand.  This paper examines that cooperative phenomenon, analyzing and exploring the choices made by early modern scholars in balancing form, function, and authorship in the circulation of knowledge.