Judith Brouwer
The meeting minutes indicate that these discussions were important for the aca
demy's intellectual vitality and sometimes led to the creation of new knowledge.107
For example, during a meeting on March 22, 1769, it was found, through the prac
tice of comparison, that two essays on the transit of Venus contradicted each other.
Pieter Boddaert had sent the ZGW his observations on the transit of Venus, but
during a meeting of the ZGW Jona Willem te Water stated that it was contradic
tory to observations he had received from an unnamed astronomer, which proved
Boddaert's work incorrect. Thereupon, it was decided that the secretary Tjeenk
would send a letter to Boddaert so as to allow Boddaert to improve his work.108
It illustrates how the ZGW had a role in the creation of knowledge through the
practice of comparing information from different sources. This particular com
parison led to a better understanding of the transit of Venus. Furthermore, it also
reveals that the ZGW's primary goal was not necessarily to create knowledge as
an institution but to support its members in their work of creating knowledge.
An indispensable role of the ZGW was that of an arbitrator: deciding which
papers and letters were of a high enough quality to be published in its journal. The
ZGW employed its network to come to a quality judgement. An example of this
is Mr. A. Paardekooper returning the documents sent to him with his comments
on the quality of the pieces.109 The papers and letters that were sent to the ZGW
sometimes specifically requested the ZGW to give a judgement on the quality,
like Albertus van der Schalle who sent in an essay on mathematics by his friend
Bartholosis Renou who had recently passed away. Van der Schalle hoped that the
ZGW would find the work of his friend of a high standard so that his scholarly
abilities would be recognised through a publication.110 This trend of an academy
functioning as a 'review board' did not only apply to the ZGW. Andrea Rusnock
asserts that the Royal Society's important role within correspondence networks
was also that of a review board.111 Rusnock argues that the main function of a
correspondence network for the academy was to gather, evaluate, and dissemi
nate the knowledge that was sent to the learned society, as opposed to only the
'synthesis of knowledge. The papers and letters that were deemed of good quality
would be disseminated by the ZGW.
113
107 ZA, Arch. KZGW, inv. nr. 1, scan 55.
108 ZA, Arch. KZGW, inv. nr. 3, scan 26.
109 ZA, Arch. KZGW, inv. nr. 60, scan 83.
110 ZA, Arch. KZGW, inv. nr. 60, scan 35.
111 Rusnock, Correspondence Networks, 155-156.
