Trevor-Roper's introduction to Miss Purver's work¹ sums up the book adequately. There are two stories about the antecedents of the foundation of the Royal Society of London, overlapping yet different. Sprat's History of the Royal Society of 1667 declares the Oxford group to be its antecedent, whereas most other writers assume the London group to be the one. The prejudice against Sprat, namely that he was himself prejudiced in favour of Oxford, is dispelled by showing that his History was the semi-official one. The question, however, is ideological. The Royal Society was Baconian. So were both the Oxford and the London groups. But whereas the London group held vulgar Baconianism, the Oxford group and its successor the Royal Society were purist Baconian. Thus, the true predecessor is the Oxford group as Sprat has claimed, not the London group as his successors have claimed.