Experimental Philosophy. Focusing on Margery’s practice of hand-colouring flower books, her copied and original drawings of flowers, and her experimental production of ink, we argue that Margery’s sensibility towards colour was crucial to Henry’s microscopic observations of plants. Even if Margery’s sophisticated knowledge of plants never left the household, we argue that her contribution was nevertheless crucial to the observation and representation of plants within the community of experimental philosophy. In this way, our article highlights the importance of female artists within the history of scientific observation, the use of books and paperwork in the botanical disciplines, and the relationship between household science and experimental philosophy.This article examines the early-modern household’s importance for producing experimental knowledge through the Halifax household of Margery and Henry Power. While Henry Power has been studied as a natural philosopher within the male-dominated intellectual circles of Cambridge and London, the epistemic labour of his wife, Margery Power, has hitherto been overlooked. Since the 1650s, this couple worked in tandem to enhance their understanding of the vegetable world through various paper technologies, from books, paper slips, and recipe notebooks to Margery’s drawing album and Henry’s published  Experimental Philosophy (1664), the first English book on microscopical observations.i However, it is less known that a woman was also involved in Henry’s microscopical observations of plants — his wife, Margery Power. Henry’s memorandum books show that Margery was likely to be in charge of purchasing and handling the scientific instruments at home, at least towards the end of Henry’s life. In October or November 1668, she noted down the purchase of ‘A Telescope’ for £4 and ‘2 Prospectifs’ for 14d, and on 5 April 1669, just after Henry had died, she wrote down a memo to ‘Remember to aske for the Mycroscope at Mr. Mat: Widdops’ with her signature ‘Margery Power’ above it.ii While Samuel Pepys and his wife famously observed through a microscope together using Henry’s book as instruction, it seems that Margery also observed through microscopes, both together with Henry and by herself.iiiIn December 1668, Henry Power, Halifax physician, natural philosopher and one of the first elected members of the Royal Society, passed away in the city of Wakefield. A pioneer of the budding discipline of microscopy, Henry was known for his iv The same day when she asked for the microscope, Margery made a note to ‘enquire of Mr Giles about lackering of Picture Frames & write down the Receipt’. All these notes indicate Margery’s knowledge and dedication to drawing.Brought up in the family of Anthony Foxcroft, a wealthy merchant family in the Halifax region just like the Power family, Margery had been receiving education and was familiar with the Halifax intellectuals in her own and the Power family’s circle. Around the time she married Henry, her father married Henry’s widowed mother, making Henry and Margery stepsiblings as well as husband and wife. According to Kim Sloan, Margery possibly took drawing lessons with her sister-in-law Ellen Power from the glass painter Henry Gyles.v In this paper, we argue that housewifery tasks and everyday practices had not only logistic and practical importance, but also epistemic importance for the emerging culture of experimental philosophy, as the female members of the household also contributed intellectual labour such as identification of plants, flower colouring and painting, and experiments on the nature of colour. Using a painting kit Henry bought her, Margery hand-coloured numerous printed images of flowers in herbals and florilegium books. Both she and Ellen each produced a striking watercolour album in which they limned and coloured flowers, insects and animals following the styles of well-known botanical authors and illustrators such as Jacques Le Moyne de Morgues, Johann Theodor de Bry and John Parkinson. For at least 15 years, painting and colouring flowers was an integral part of Margery’s life, and a crucial factor for the development of experimental philosophy and microscopic vision within the Power household.Margery Power tells us a new story about the role and agency of female members of a scientific household. As Deborah Harkness has shown in her work on Jane and John Dee, the household of an early modern natural philosopher was often an “experimental household.”Drawing and colouring plants require a significant amount of botanical knowledge. To produce botanical drawings in correspondence to the plants she drew after, Margery read and analysed several herbals. In many cases, she compared botanical descriptions from several sources only to confirm the colour of one single species. She also conducted colourmaking experiments alongside Henry. Similarly, the carefully taken notes, comments and scribbles left by Margery on her husband’s herbal books and botanical notebooks all suggest the shared ownership and use of botanical knowledge within this house: the library, the plant samples, as well as the magnifying glasses and microscopes were never solely Henry Power’s tools for knowledge production.vi At the same time, Florike Egmond, Sachiko Kusukawa and others have argued that the practice of copying images was not only a way of learning to draw, but an integral part of the creation of knowledge that served various epistemic ends.viiDespite her thoughtful production of botanical drawings, Margery Power has not so far held a place in our histories of the arts and sciences. Margery never published any works of her own, and her scattered botanical notes and recipes could easily be undervalued within the traditional hierarchy of knowledge production: Authors prioritised over illustrators, ‘original’ work over commonplaces, and natural-historical observations carried out in scientific settings over household, ‘amateur’ flower painting. However, in recent years such hierarchies have been increasingly upset by scholarship within the history of art and science. Scholars like Alix Cooper, Mary Terrall and Anna Marie Roos have studied the critical role of sometimes named, sometimes unnamed female illustrators such as Hélène Dumoustier and Susanna and Anna Lister, and shown how they fostered what Lorraine Daston and Peter Galison have called a collaborative “four-eyed sight” of nature.viii Margery and Ellen’s drawings, nonetheless, were also copied from Jacques Le Moyne’s La Clef des Champs, a book recommended by the author as a pattern book for painters, engravers, embroiderers, weavers and needleworkers.ix Building on this scholarship, we argue that the drawings of Margery and Ellen significantly shaped the vision of colours in Henry’s microscopical observations, which emphasizes the usually ignored household context of early modern microscopic practice. Whereas the few studies of Henry Power has mainly focused on his relation to the male-dominated intellectual spheres of Cambridge, the Royal Society and the so-called Towneley circle, we argue that Henry Power’s natural-historical vision was shaped by his collaboration with the female members of his household, Margery and Ellen Power.Yet, the epistemic importance of copied images speaks not only to images of Thomas Willis’s dissected brain or Robert Hooke’s enlarged snowflakes, but also to the feminised image reproduction of flower books, usually associated with embroidery and needlework. To reevaluate the epistemic importance of these traditionally feminine image genres, scholars such as Janice Neri and Mary Learner have pointed out that some natural history albums, like those of Maria Sibylla Merian, were specifically published to serve as inspiration for embroiderers, and that women embroiderers of botanical images shaped the vision promoted by male experimental philosophers.x It was his experience of collaborating with skilled artists that allowed Hooke to produce the magnificent illustrations of the Micrographia, and more importantly, sharpened his eye and allowed him to see the details he represented through text and image. In a similar manner, we argue that the household knowledge of producing, observing and representing colours pioneered by Margery shaped Henry’s description of the chromatic details of minute plant parts observed through his microscopes. While Brian Ogilvie makes a clear distinction between the technical language of botanical texts and the sparse verbal descriptions of the florilegium genre, Margery’s work shows that flower colouring could be an equally technical process. As we argue, the female amateur artist Margery produced a tested, recorded and regularised colour system that had a lasting impact on early modern microscopy.xi From books and plants to microscopes, the case of Margery Power calls for a revaluation of the importance of female artists within the history of scientific observation, the use of books and paperwork in the botanical disciplines, and the relationship between household science and the emerging experimental philosophy.Unlike in the collaboration between Susanna and Anna Lister and their father, the natural historian Martin Lister, Margery did not produce images that were published or in other ways used as natural-historical illustrations. Margery’s significance for early modern microscopy was not in published images, but in the sensibility of colours she created during in her process of image-making and colour-making experimentations. Margery’s paintings never left the house, but her knowledge of pigments, tones and hues significantly shaped Henry’s way of seeing and recognizing colour. As Henry confessed himself, compared to the shape and size, the exact colours of small microscopic specimens were harder to get hold of. Therefore, it was important for microscopists to master a sharp sense of colours and a refined chromatic vocabulary. In the scholarship on early modern microscopy emphasis is often put on Hooke’s circle of miniature painters and the training he received in the workshop of the portrait painter Peter Lely.xii 10 years later in 1664, preparing now to move his family from Halifax to Wakefield, Henry did the same thing once again. In the manuscript “A Catalogue of all my Bookes,” Henry wrote down the titles of all his books organized by language and size. During these 10 years, his book collection had vastly expanded: The number of folio books had increased from 32 to 68, the quartos to 74, and the octavos had increased to more than two hundred.xiii When Henry died four years later in 1668, his wife Margery seemed to have inherited his books. xiv A library catalogue titled “A Catalogue of Dr Power’s Bookes” currently collected in Sloane MS 4019, f. 149-154, records the changes and expansions of this library. Written in a neat and legible hand, this catalogue noted down the authors and titles of the books more carefully, as well as the prices of all the books.xv A comparison between Margery’s hand from her drawing album and other sources and the catalogue has shown that f. 149-153 of the catalogue were very likely to be written by Margery.  14-0. An Old Lattin Herball, 1591” that appears in Margery’s catalogue of the library.xxii It has Henry’s signatures all over the place: Two on the frontispiece, one under the preface title, some at the end of his annotations, and once he even added “H. ower” to the book’s signature “P” at the bottom.xxiii Henry signed off with his title M.D. in this book, which indicates that this book was bought after his graduation in 1654 and possibly after his marriage. Margery Power did not sign Icones Stirpium, but the particular manner of colouring and inserting paper slips in her hand indicate her work on it.Although the Narcissus Africanus aureus maior, or the great yellow Daffodil of Africa that Margery coloured in her copy of Florilegium was accompanied by a slip with colour descriptions in her hand (Paradisi in Sole (1629), listed as ‘Parkinson’s Garden’ in the 1664 book catalogue, as many other contemporary herbals, including Gerard’s, did not include this species. The key information in Margery’s slip was identical to Parkinson’s description of the same flower, as shown by the underlined phrases: “(their leaves were) a better greene colour, then many others that are grayish, among which appeareth a stalke, not rising to the height of the leaues, bearing at the toppe out of a skinnie hose many faire, goodly, and large flowers, … of a faire shining yellow colour, hauing large, round, and open cups or boules, yellower then the outer leaues; … the roote is great, and couered with a blackish browne coate or skinne”xxiv The colours she used matched her own commonplaced information: she did colour the inner cup of the flower ‘more yellow’ than the outer pedals. In Margery’s process of colouring, bookish botanical knowledge based on Henry’s book collection was utilised, extracted and synthesised based on her artistic and natural-historical interests.In Margery’s case, colouring flowers was not simply an easy pastime activity. To colour all these plants and flowers in a faithful-enough manner, Margery had to identify the species, understand the plants’ taxonomy, and make her way through various information about their colours. For example, the her hand : “(1) Naxxv British Library Add MS 5298 is a drawing album of 140 folios, including flowers, animals, tools and colour plates that were very possibly drawn by Margery and perhaps also by her drawing teacher, Henry Gyles. In this album, more than a hundred pages are drawings of tulips. The album is catalogued as “Tulips, Iris’s &c Birds &c done by Mrs. Power. Icone. in water colours, some in Oil. not bound” in Sloane 3972 Vol.VI, which indicates that these were probably originally separate pieces of drawings made by Margery and only bound later after being acquired by Sloane.xxviMargery’s labour, knowledge and creativity left their marks on both the botanical books signed with Henry Power’s name, and her own album of copied paintings and original drawings. She combined various printer sources to explore the figuration of one of her (presumably) favourite flowers: Tulips.Florilegium, as pointed out by Kim Sloan, and the copy of Parkinson’s Paradisi in Sole, owned by the Powers, and potentially other flower books. Using black lead pencils to trace images has been a recorded technique since the second half of the seventeenth century. Odoardo Fialetti described the whole process in his The whole art of drawing (1660), including the use of Venice paper, oil, black lead pencils and charcoal. William Salmon in his Polygraphice (1672) also recorded the same technique using Venice paper, oil and black lead to trace images.xxvii Margery certainly had all these necessary materials for tracing. On 5 July 1654, the day when Henry ‘was admitted Dr in Med in Cambridge’, Margery scribbled down a shopping list in Henry’s memorandum book asking him to buy her ‘one quire of royal paper, one quire of Venice quilt paper’ as well as other drawing equipment including cans and cups of tamarisk and serpentine tone colours, plus a magnifying glass.xxviiiJudging from the sizes of the flower pictures and the black lead traces left within the ink contour, it is possible that Margery traced these pictures from printed books. Her sources include de Bry’s Paradisi; but Margery elongated the stem, added a leaf, and arranged it in a different way.Even though Margery might have been tracing, she curated the flower images from various sources according to her own design. Like the author de Bry himself, who copied images from other herbals onto his metal plates, Margery also combined tulips from different sources into one single image and tried to curate her own flower book, as shown in xxix These identical images may reflect the time they practiced drawing together. In Sloane’s catalogue, this album was recorded as “Several flowers fruits, Birds & Insects painted in water colours done by Mrs. Ellen Power in an Oblong. 4to,” which confirms Ellen’s authorship and ownership.xxx Ellen’s album was initially bound together with a pattern book of beasts, fruits and flowers, which was made after Jacques Le Moyne’s La Clef des Champs.xxxi Both Margery’s and Ellen’s albums included some images drawn after this pattern book, potentially also other pattern books.xxxii They also referred to Adriaen Collaert’s Avium vivæ icones in their drawings, which provided models for parrots, peacocks, turkeys and many other animals.xxxiiiMargery’s flower album contains several drawings of animals and flower patterns, many of which are almost identical to drawings from Ellen’s album, currently British Museum, 1975, U. 1589, with the signature “Ellen Power Booke” on the last page.xxxiv Margery created figures of iris, tulips, marigolds, and other plants based on what she learned from de Bry’s, Parkinson’s, and Le Moyne’s images. The form of the Columbine, for example, was very likely after fol. 33 of Le Moyne’s pattern book, while the realistically depicted Iris flower was possibly the result of the numerous drawings of Iris in her album book. Knowledge from flower books and embroidery manuals both became Margery’s source of artisanal creation.Based on various printed sources, the styles of Ellen’s and Margery’s drawings combined and switched between embroidery patterns and natural-historical drawings. Comparing their drawings with the potential sources  shows usFlorilegium, were all in Henry Power’s hand. Moreover, Henry also took care of Margery’s book. In a bill dated 10 October 1656, Henry noted that he “paid for my booke vamping” and the vamping of “my wife book” each five dimes; the latter could very possibly be this Florilegium scrapbook or other books owned by Margery that we do not yet know of.xxxv This reveals a complex dynamic in the Power household regarding the ownership of books. On the one hand, Henry acknowledged Margery’s ownership of this book, and went out there to help Margery mend her book; on the other, Henry still signed his own name on Margery’s book, and listed the book in “A Catalogue of all my Bookes” along with his other 507 books. After Henry’s death, Margery still catalogued her husband’s books as “A Catalogue of Dr Powers Bookes,” though the entry “My wifes Booke,” or the Florilegium book was taken out of this version of the catalogue.Stories surrounding the women’s books in the Power household reveal more historical nuances beyond individual book ownership. Unlike many early modern husbands, Henry seemed to acknowledge his wife’s ownership of her book. Apart from cataloguing the book as his wife’s, he also signed Margery’s name on the book several times on her behalf: the giant size “Margery Power 1657” on the book lining, the small signatures of the couple both on the hand-coloured, gold-leaf-decorated frontispiece, and the brackets-framed “Margery Power Her Booke” at the end of the preface of this In Margery’s case, even though she owned few books as an individual, her intellectual pursuits in reading were nonetheless very present in her album of botanical illustrations, her hand-coloured herbals, and her botanical notes on the slips hidden inside the books. While it has been pointed out that early modern women’s books were often listed as a part of household property, the libraries of learned men such as Henry Power should not be merely seen as their own either. It was not a private library, but a household library in its nature, and a place for collaborative reading, learning and experiments. The library of the Power household shows another “ownership” of books, one that was not determined by the number of books owned by an individual, but by the intellectual endeavour shared among female and male household members.Theatrum Botanicum, Henry Power scribbled down a poetic reflection on the value and use of plants as a preface.xxxvi According to this preface, plants and their products constituted a lively and dynamic economy:xxxviiFor by the medium of Plants god has bestowed all food clothing & medicine upon man. To this ofspring wee also ow (for the most part) our Houses, shipping & infinite other things though some of them Proteus-like have run through divers shapes, as this paper whereon I write, that first from seed became flax, then after much exation thread, then cloth, where it was cutt & mangle’d to serve the Humours & fashions of Men.In Sloane 1343, a handy little notebook with extensive reading notes on the botanical tradition from the time of Theophrastus to Parkinson’s xxxviii Henry was fully aware that papers and books, those media of his plant knowledge, were originally plants as well. From seeds and flowers to medicine made from them, from paper to books and notebooks, this section will focus on the economic life of plants in the Power household, putting materials, books and manuscripts under the same lens of recycling. It will show how recycling functioned as a form of collaboration, and how knowledge was produced and transmitted through the recycle of plants in the Power household.Henry’s acknowledgements that plants entered a cycle of being used and reused from the very starting moment of their life shows that Henry, like his contemporaries Issac Newton and John Beale, really was a man living in the seventeenth-century ‘cyclical cosmos’, as analysed by Simon Werrett.Florilegium were torn up, bound into a new volume for Margery to colour. So was the paper Margery used for drawing. The Venice paper that Margery used for tracing was also a popular tool for observation among contemporary natural philosophers: Walter Charleton affirmed that a granule of dust, when observed “on a sheet of Venice Paper,” appeared to be “conflated of ten hundred thousand millions of insensible Particles.” Similarly, Robert Hooke also advised using “a piece of very fine Venice paper” as the background for observing the fracture of sunbeam in the water.xxxix For microscopists of her time, Venice paper was a very good backing paper for its smoothness and transparency. Henry Power also used paper in similar ways. He used “a white sheet of paper” to hold the falling spark from the striking flint and steel, in order to observe the “little dark spot or moat, no bigger then a pins point, which through our Microscope did appear to be a perfectly round ball polished like Steel or Glass”; when cutting a frozen eye to observe the interior structure, he also used “an oyled paper” to hold the object.xl We do not know for sure, though, whether Henry borrowed his wife’s ‘quire of Royal paper’ and ‘quire of Venice guilt paper’, which seemed to be high-quality judging from the paper used in her drawing album; it is not surprising if he did.Paper was always recyclable in the household of Henry and Margery Power. As we examined before, various volumes of de Bry’s Theatrum Botanicum and opinions on plant-made paper, two more people also wrote in it. Following Henry’s botanical commonplaces without leaving many blank pages in-between, someone started copying down several pages of recipes from Gerard’s herbal in a neat hand. Sloan has suggested that these recipes could be written by Henry’s wife, yet this hand is very different from both Margery’s and Henry’s tilting, elongated Italic hands.xli These recipes were written within the grids that Henry drew in his notebook, and intersecting with Henry’s: after this compiler had been commonplacing recipes for around ten pages, Henry started to write again, noting down a remedy for gonorrhoea. It is possible that these recipes were from other family members or commissioned by Henry or Margery to their servants to copy down. We do not completely exclude the possibility, though, that this could be Henry’s earlier, more rigid hand from his student time.So were their notebooks recycled. The memorandum books that Henry and Margery used were already written in a thrifty manner: written from the beginning to the middle-end in one year, and two years later, flipped upside-down and used from the end back to the beginning. As we have shown, Margery kept using the same notebooks after Henry’s death. In the Power household, recycling was always inseparable from collaborating. In the same notebook that Henry wrote his canon of botanists, notes on Experimental Philosophy.xlii Or, its flower could be “put into a glasse, & set into a hill of Ants”, closed and stopped for a month there until it turned into a liquid to be applied outwardly for gout, following a recipe in Henry’s Theatrum Botanicum notebook commonplaced from Gerard’s herbal.xliii If lucky, it could also survive as a whole plant, be put into a vase and used as Margery’s model for drawing and colouring, as she might do with flowers in their garden. Other plants were similarly used by both members of the family. While Margery was colouring and drawing poppy flowers and strawberries in her album, Henry was putting their leaves and seeds under the microscope. xliv In the botanical world of this couple, flowers were always used in collaboration and for diverse purposes.Either way, these recipe notes from Gerard reflects the Power couple’s common interest in flowers. An object for artistic and natural-historical interests, the flower received particular attention in the Power household. Suppose that a lively flowering lily by some coincidence fell into the hands of the Power couple, it could face several destinies: It could be dissected on the table, have its long style removed, and pendants tipped off to be “pleasantly” observed through one of Henry’s microscopes and reported in the xlv In October 1661, Henry paid a waller named Aspen to renovate their greenhouse, and in January 1662/1663, he paid a hedger named Hallam to plant 170 trees on their land. Hallam was also hired as a gardener to take care of the root garden, the knot garden, and the garden patch under the window of their renovated kitchen.xlvi Unfortunately, Henry does not mention which plants they nurtured in the greenhouse or the exact species growing in the several garden patches. It is likely that he grew medicinal plants himself, though, for he notes down that he had a joiner make shelves and nests of boxes for his collection of materia medica, including a number of long drawers for roots.xlvii It is, then, very possible that the seeds of corn poppies, maidenhair, strawberries and moonwort that Henry observed through his microscope were later planted into the gardens maintained by Margery and their gardener Hallam.It is certain that Margery and Henry had a garden in their house at least since their move into New Hall in 1656. As Jennifer Stead has documented on the basis of a reading of Henry’s memorandum books, the Power’s spent most of their years at New Hall renovating the gentry house, its garden, and its outer walls.xlviii Henry seems to have been very interested in culinary art: Sloane 1319, a quarto notebook of more than thirty folios, is the result of his encyclopaedic effort in culinary knowledge from plants’ medicinal virtues to ale making. Beginning with common bread-making materials such as wheat, rye, and barley, to spices such as rosemary, parsley, and coriander, to the flesh of beef, goats and hares, Henry listed specifically the temperament and degree of all these common foods, which diseases they were good for, and how to process them medicinally. Many of the flowers and fruits Henry studied in this book, such as marigold, rose, violets and turnips, pears, cherries, strawberries and so on, were also painted in Margery’s drawing album. While Margery’s drawings were from printed sources rather than directly from nature, her selection of species reflects that fruits and flowers commonly available in the household also spurred her interest. Reading and colouring those plant illustrations, Margery learned about both the curious exotic tulips and England’s most common plants and products, the latter of which became materials for both Margery’s drawing and Henry’s experimental research. The poppy seeds, lilies and strawberries we find in Henry’s microscopical observations show how his research was conditioned by his familiarity with everyday objects and their characteristics in the household context.xlixIn the Power household, flowers, leaves, fruits, and spices used in the kitchen, as well as other commonly used plant products were both objects for consumption and objects for research. As scholars such as Elaine Leong, Wendy Wall and Simon Werrett have pointed out, culinary art and knowledge of food played an important part in early modern experimental science and medicine.l In Margery’s case, the books were also her laboratory of artistic experiments. Instead of seeing books as mere books, she and her husband also saw them as separable pages and tearable paper. Her compiled copy of the Florilegium made of images from various editions can be seen as an extended form of extra-illustration, a practice of collecting visual materials to insert into and enhance existing printed books flourishing mostly since the eighteenth century. A unique way of reusing paper materials, extra-illustration was usually considered as a pastime activity for rich gentlemen, which required extra investments in collecting images and sometimes rebinding books.li While Werrett has pointed out the importance of thriftiness in household science, for the affluent Power family, their “recycling” was more likely for epistemic purposes than economic purposes.lii It was not a thrift, but a luxury, that Margery and Henry were able to recycle a 14s flower book.Like plants in the garden, books and paper also carried multiple functions in early modern households. Historians of graffiti have shown how a book in an early-modern family could be used simultaneously for pen trials, calligraphic teachings and exercises. Florilegium and Icones Stirpium, were annotated by both Margery and Henry. Henry’s annotations almost covered every entry from the beginning to the end, while Margery’s slips and handwriting appeared occasionally in some pages. It is possible that they read these books together, or they could also have been taking turns, one working on it after another.One used something for a purpose, the other used it again for another — this kind of recycling was also an important part of the collaboration between Margery and Henry. This can be seen from the annotations and commonplaces from the herbals in their household library. Both of the two books Margery coloured, liii While annotating Icones Stirpium, Henry translated Latin and foreign-language plant names into English and cross-referenced to other English and continental herbals, occasionally adding some findings from his own observations. On page 309, he noted that the two English names of gentian minor were from “Ger. Chap.101.” On page 200, on “Irio Sive Erisimum Dioscoridis,” he noted: “Bank Cresses. So called first by Dr. Turner. Vid. Gerard. Chap.15. pag.197.” As Gerard did not refer to Turner in his entry, it seems that Henry was examining multiple herbals while checking the images of one plant, including William Turner, Pietro Andrea Mattioli and other herbalists.liv This taxonomical interest corresponds with his way of reading Parkinson’s Theatrum Botanicum. In the botanical notebook Sloane 1343, Henry noted down a detailed index of every “tribe,” or category of Parkinson’s herbal and plants listed in those categories: in the tribe of Cathartic or purging plants, for example, he listed the name of Aloe, Indian Juice, Rhubarb, Coolquintida etc., all according to Parkinson’s original sequence.lvLike many of his contemporaries, Henry’s comprehensive annotations showed that plant names and references were his main concern.Theatrum Botanicum most carefully, Margery frequently referred to the descriptions from Parkinson’s Garden for colouring, as analysed in the first section. Like Henry’s annotations, her numerous slips were also written in a consistent manner, containing the names, variants, and colours of each part of the plant — flowers, leaves, roots, and so on. Sometimes Henry might have been working with her, as there are also slips and annotations on plants’ colours in Henry’s hand; but it is not clear whether Margery coloured them first, or Henry annotated them first. Usually Henry’s annotations on colour contain only one or two words, ‘yellow’ or ‘white’, while Margery’s slips contain more information and nuances, as much as in her colourings. On page 92,  seem to lose their Colours, and grow diaphanous, as you may observe in the Microscope.” lvii Similarly, Henry argued that the reason that insects and fish traditionally had been considered to be bloodless was because their blood vessels were so fine that they only contained a tiny bit of coloured material and not enough to give off a proper red colour.lviii Seeing colours through microscopes was indeed difficult.lixTowards the end of the first book of Experimental Philosophy, we nevertheless find an abundance of colour: The powder of the white lily “looks of a pure pale yellow, and like so many pieces of polished Amber,” the seeds of strawberries “look not unlike the Strawberry; some reddish, yellowish, and green colours, as the Strawberries themselves are,” the livers of lampreys are “a pure grass-green colour, which (…) presently turned into a faint Olive-colour,” while the eyes of the little white short-legged spider had “a pale yellow circle, which encompasseth a violet-blew Pupill, most clear and most admirable.” lx Although he complained that the task was difficult because of the tendency to opaqueness, in his descriptions Power revealed a heightened sensibility towards colour and an advanced vocabulary with which to describe them.And yet, in the individual microscopical observations of the naturalia was an important part of any identification of specimens, and especially plant specimens. lxi As argued by Valentina Pugliano, colour sensibility – that is the ability to differentiate between the many tones and hues of colours and to describe them using a somewhat stable nomenclature – was crucial for the naturalist in general, and for the microscopist in particular. We should remember that the microscopist was seeing coloured objects that no one had described before, so a chromatic vocabulary of precision and accuracy was all the more important. But unlike shapes and sizes, which were easily described using the language of geometry, colour was a more fleeting quality, and, as the artist and natural philosopher Richard Waller pointed out in 1686, a “Standard of Colours” was yet a “thing wanting in Philosophy.”lxii Thus, naturalists had to rely on the experience of those who mastered colour, such as artisans, painters, chymists and craftsmen.lxiii In this section, we show that attempts to develop a chromatic standard were undertaken within the Power household through experiments with colour production.Before the eighteenth-century emergence of taxonomical systems based on morphology, descriptions of the colours of lxiv And looking carefully at Margery’s hand colouring, we can see that while she used the same two kinds of greens for most of the flowers, she also mixed these greens to produce either a lighter or a darker green. From their memorandum books, we know that Margery had Henry buy her serpentine tone, a kind of green, from the market, but she would have adjusted the tint of this colour to make it lighter or darker, more yellow or more blue depending on her needs.lxv Margery also made her own colours from scratch using a variety of ingredients, tools and manufacturing processes.lxvi On the first two pages of her watercolour album, Margery wrote up her recipes for making coloured ink  and John Bate’s The Mysteryes of Nature, and Art (1634), just as Margery might have learned about colour tinting in the anonymous cosmetics treatise Artificiall Embellishments, which included recipes to produce make-up using the same materials as those of Margery.lxviiiTo make her colours, Margery used white wine vinegar, alum, ceruse, gum Arabic, ale, vermillion, lime, sugar candy and logwood water. In order to turn these materials into coloured paints, she either dissolved them in an oyster shell or boiled them in a silver vessel. While Margery did not specify where she had learned to make colours through these methods, her materials, instruments and procedures resemble those circulating in manual books and books of secrets at the time.th is the same as the 6th onely a little vermillion added”. She also described that the 6th colour, a beige-cum-red, was the same as the fourth, which had stood in the oyster shell a day, which had caused it to turn darker: “the longer it stands in the oyster shell & more purple it makes it.”lxix This method of letting the solutions stand for a shorter or longer period in order to reach the desired hue was also generally reported on in the art manual literature, as was the process of adding small quantities of another substance such as ceruse or vermillion.lxx In total, Margery listed recipes for the making of 31 colours, but many of these were slightly different nuances of the same colours, such as beige or red. These careful experiments tell us about the familiarity with which Margery manipulated colour.Although some of the coloured shields are now faded, we can see that Margery successfully produced some beiges, two slightly different reds, two tones of pink, a blue colour and a purple colour. Reading through the recipes, it is apparent that many of the colours are variations of each other. For instance, Margery wrote that “The 2 is the same onelly made lighter with Ceruse,” “The 7As such, the colour catalogue presented at the beginning of the watercolour album served three purposes. First, it allowed Margery to compare colours easily by presenting them in an organised way on two pieces of paper. Second, by giving the recipes for making the colours, it would have allowed her to recreate them at a later stage in order to ensure some consistency in her homemade colours. But, third, just as with Margery’s medical recipes, the purpose of these colour recipes was not only practical. Rather, they show Margery’s interest into the ways in which it was possible to change colour through the use of chemical substances and procedures and as such they constitute an enquiry into the nature of colour itself not at all that different from the debates on colour taking place among her male peers.Météores and Principia. In the Météores, Descartes had experimented with glassware in order to create ‘artificial’ rainbows thereby establishing his spin theory of colour.lxxi Henry agreed with this theory and argued that “Colour is nothing else but the modification of Light, which by the alteration of its motion is dyed into colours.”lxxii In order to expand on this theory, Henry included a number of experiments in which he altered the colours of liquids by adding different chemical and vegetable solutions to it. For instance, Henry added drops of the oil of tartar to an infusion of violets to create a green liquid, which he then changed into purple by adding some oil of vitriol.lxxiii He also changed a red infusion of dried roses into green by adding spirit of harts-horn, and made amber colour by adding “a little sharp vinegar” to an infusion of Brazil wood.lxxivMargery shared this interest into the nature of colour with her husband Henry, who produced colours using procedures, techniques and ingredients with a high degree of resemblance to Margery’s. In the fourth deduction at the end of his book on microscopy, Henry discussed the nature of colours and concluded that colours are nothing but the effect of the specific motion of the ‘solary atoms’ following the arguments made by René Descartes in his lxxv Henry also noticed that when specific chemical substances were added to the coloured liquids, they turned transparent only to become colourful again when another substance was added. This experiment strongly resembles the chemical experiment referred to as the ‘reduction to the pristine state’ that Robert Boyle published in his 1666 The Origine of the Formes and Qualities.lxxvi Here, too, Boyle argued that even though the appearance of a chemical solution, such as its colour, could be altered by adding different substances, it nevertheless remained the same.lxxviiInterestingly, like Margery’s catalogue, these experiments are all given as recipes as they give instructions to ‘you’, the reader, on how to create the different tinctures. And like Margery, Henry is also interested in how to change the tone of colours: If a few drops of the oil of tartar is added to the “reddish Infusion” of Brazil wood, “it will turn it to a pure purplish red, like excellent Claret.” Experimental Philosophy, Henry revisited the observations made by William Harvey on the first appearance of the heart and blood within the chicken egg.lxxviii Henry concluded that it was Harvey’s lack of attention to colour changes that had made him fail to recognise that the heart, including the auricles and ventricles, was actually present long before he had claimed, although in a colourless, transparent state. What Harvey had taken to be the gradual appearance of the chicken, Henry recognised merely as a change in colour from white to vivid red rendering the already-present heart visible. Thus, a “pretty and beneficial Observation of the Microscope” showed him that when the chicken heart did appear as a “red pulsing Particle,” it was already fully formed.lxxix The awareness of the changing colours thus allowed Henry to develop a new theory of generation that emphasised the preformation of bodily organs.Henry’s own experience with colours and what he learned from Margery not only allowed him to identify and describe the colours that he observed through his microscopes; they also carried significant epistemic importance. In his discussion of chicken generation in The sensibility towards delicate colour changes, the standardised language of colour description and the chymical procedures of making and testing colours: it would be hard to distinguish Margery’s and Henry’s experiments with colours, were it not the case that one of them appeared in a celebrated publication of microscopy, the other in a forgotten manuscript. Even their ingredients were very similar: when Margery used an infusion of logwood with vinegar, Henry used the almost-identical Brazil wood. They both had an interest in creating a variety of colours and different tones of colours, and both of their practices speak to a deep knowledge of the malleability of colours and an ability to recognise individual colour tones. ‘One drop’, two drops, they both consciously controlled the amount of substances they were adding, observed the effect, and carefully recorded the process. For Margery, these colour trials were not only a practical procedure, but also an epistemic experiment aiming to understand the nature of colours, and learn how to control colour changes.Experimental Philosophy. Books, together with the surviving library catalogues of the Power household, served as an important clue and medium of the story. Tracing their collaborative use of books, we argued that the books of the Power household were a household library shared between Margery and Henry, serving practices that oscillated between being practical, artistic and scientific. The textual botanical knowledge went hand in hand with Margery and Henry’s practical knowledge, which enabled them to explore common household plants for various epistemic purposes, from drawing and observing to medicine-making. By controlling colours, developing a chromatic vocabulary and standardising ways of plant colouring, Margery created a sensibility of colours that was significant for microscopical observations.Throughout this paper, we have traced how botanical information travelled in the Power household from herbals to paper slips and recipe notebooks, to Margery’s drawing album, and Henry’s observations in the Experimental Philosophy, Margery’s work on the colours of plants was never published or otherwise disseminated until it ended up in the British Library together with the rest of the Power marginalia. Moreover, unlike Henry, whose introduction to the world of book printing and public letter-writing had been facilitated by the university education exclusive to men, Margery did not consider herself an author. However, her artistic collaboration with Ellen, as well as all the botanical activities that she undertook on her own and with Henry, shows us that she was deeply engaged in an intellectual, experimental approach to nature and plants. This should remind us that it was not only when the work of the women of the household ended up being published – as it happened in the homes of the Listers, the Breynes and Réaumur – that these women made significant epistemic contributions.Unlike Henry’s Experimental Philosophy, no stable model for reporting such observations was established. Whereas Henry looked towards the genre of the books of Sir Thomas Browne, William Harvey and Thomas Moffett for inspiration on how to compile his findings, his way of seeing, as we have argued, was developed in tandem with Margery. This particular way of seeing involved a heightened sensibility towards colour, colour changes, the inherent opaqueness of small things, and a general fondness for local flowers that could be grown within or near the household. In the years following the publication of Experimental Philosophy, this approach to studying plant minutiae was continued by Robert Hooke and Nehemiah Grew, who both read and engaged with Henry’s work. Thus, in Micrographia Hooke makes observations of the powder of lillies and poppy seeds, while also comparing the protrusions on the face of a blue fly with “the Pendants in Lillies.” lxxx As he was getting used to working with microscopes, Grew, furthermore, took extensive notes on Henry’s observations in his commonplace book, and incorporated this way of describing into his published Anatomy of Plants. Here, he described how the “minute Particles” “of a Tulip or a Lilly, being larger, is more distinctly observable,” and that these powders were yellow or white, but that “each Globulet, through a Glass, [is] transparent as Crystal.”lxxxi In this way, Margery and Henry’s attention towards the colours of plants travelled beyond their household.In one way, though, can Margery’s work be said to have left the household. When Henry published his microscopical observations as the first book of


Bullying is acknowledged by scientists as a considerable and still unresolved problem in sport. By triggering stress-related emotions, they determine the behavior of those experiencing bullying and cause various negative effects on their physical and mental health. However, in the presence of the tenacious trend in sports “to put one’s own house in order,” athletes, coaches, teams, and sports organizations themselves often do not emphasize bullying or state that they do not encounter the problem at all, and adheres to the belief that athletes may use negative emotions instrumentally in order to perform tasks given to them more effectively. The aim of this research was to reveal the determinants of the internal environment of sports organizations, causing trends of bullying in organized sport. To achieve the research aim, a qualitative research paradigm was chosen. The empirical study involved eight coaches working in organized sport in Lithuania. The survey was conducted using the semi-structured interview method. Data were analyzed employing inductive content analysis. The presented research results encompass the transcriptions of interviews, which are conceptually divided into three main categories revealing coaches’ opinion on trends of bullying in organized sport, related to the sports organization’s internal environment. Categories identified during the study can be equated to interrelated levels of model of Organizational behavior. The micro level-interrelationships; the mezzo level-sports professionals’ (coaches’) behavior; and the macro level-management of interrelationships. These results revealed which determinants of the sports organization’s internal environment can be favorable for emergence of bullying and its dynamics in both interrelationships among athletes and interrelationships between athletes and coaches. And these trends of bullying, revealed on the basis of the responses of coaches involved in the study, allow us to see harmful principles of coaching, bullying-promoting traditions of team/group leadership, existing in sport, and to predict how this may effect both the athlete himself, his environment and attractiveness of the sporting activity itself. In the society, sport is often associated with psychological and physical endurance, dramatic and constant struggle, victories. All of this also affects emotional experience of all sport participants: coaches, sports managers, spectators and especially athletes. However, not only positive emotions such as hope, happiness, or joy are experienced in this activity . IncreasHowever, a clear definition for the term bullying is still missing in the scientific literature. This is related to the traditions of using the concept itself in various languages and cultures, while the very definition is determined by the viewpoint, the circumstances of the emergence of bullying and the contexts of conducted research . NeverthThus, bullying in sport is increasingly recognized as a particularly undesirable expression of aggressive behavior, which causes stress-related emotions, determines behavior of persons experiencing bullying, and causes various adverse effects on physical and mental health. More often, though, regardless of the type of sport or institutional dependence, there is an increasing tendency in scientific literature to analyze aggressive or violent behavior of persons involved in sport, especially in athlete-coach relationships , rather Therefore, more extensive research, involving coaches in it, can provide valuable knowledge which could serve as a basis for reviewing the policy of training and leadership of sports teams and bullying prevention which, unfortunately, is often insufficiently effective .aim of this research is to reveal the determinants of the internal environment of sports organizations, causing trends of bullying in organized sport.The need for such research is also increased by understanding that athletes’ emotional experiences are related to their performances , which, Bullying as a subset of interpersonal aggression is considered to be a major public problem associated with a series of negative outcomes that eventually affect physical and mental health of victims. It is stated that athletes who have experienced bullying suffer from a lack of motivation, bad mood, fear, headache, they are wearied of chronic fatigue, increased heart rate . Other aData on links between aggression or anger and bullying in the sports environment are so far controversial. On one hand, it has been noticed that sport participation is the activity where the person’s aggressiveness may reduce , while sStudies show that the prevalence of the bullying phenomenon in sport may vary depending on the target group. For example, The existence of bullying in sport and its specificity is also stated in the results of qualitative studies. For example, Perhaps it is hardly possible to fully avoid physical and psychological harm in sport , but sitIn order to answer research questions, the empirical study was constructed, employing the qualitative research strategy, which provides a possibility to view of the problem from the holistic standpoint, focusing on unique human experience in the aspect of the analyzed phenomenon, and to understand its peculiarities. The study is grounded on a constructivist-interpretive paradigm . AccordiThe study was conducted using the qualitative content analysis approach which is extremely well-suited to analysing data on the multifaceted, sensitive phenomena . This isThe research sample was drawn up using the criterion sampling. In this case, the research sample selects all cases that meet some criterion and helps to ensure the quality of the research data . ResearcTwo coaches from all coaches who took part in the survey train three (5I) and four (6I) teams, other coaches simultaneously train one-two teams or groups. With regard to trained athletes, coaches worked only with girls or young women (1I), only with boys and young men  or trained mixed groups .The research data was collected using the semi-structured interview method. Such type of interview was chosen because of its freedom, immediacy and flexibility; i.e., because of created conditions to change the order of given questions, their wordings, to give additional questions, purposefully orientating the participants in the direction of the research phenomenon and consistently deepening the researcher’s perception of the research object. Besides, this type of interview is based on general guidelines to ensure that all interviewees are subject to similar stimuli, thereby allowing a common base for data analysis .To conduct the interviews, interview guides were prepared following guidelines proposed by H.J. N = 382)   with regN = 382) . Semi-stThe study was ethically approved by Lithuanian Sports University Ethics Committee of Social Sciences. Data were collected in January 2019, employing individual semi-structured face-to-face interviews with coaches. The average length of one interview was from 39:14 min to 1:27:90 min.Before conducting every interview, research participants’ received in writing an informed consent form, kurioje buvo paaiškinta kaip tyrimo metu jø privacy, confidentiality and anonymity were ensured. The participants were introduced to the principles of usefulness and fairness of the research; the research aim, protection of the collected data and the use of future results were also presented to research participants. Research participants had to give their verbal agreement that they did not mind recording of the interview on a dictaphone. The interviewer would give pre-formulated questions, adding new questions emerging while listening to the participant. Audio-recordings were transcribed verbatim by one of the authors. All features enabling to identify the surveyed coach were removed by giving a separate code to every coach and this code is referred to in the “Results” section Afterward, transcribed texts were sent to coaches to check to ensure that no statements had been misinterpreted or wrongly rewritten .Data analysis in this research was executed by using hand/human-coding method, according to a predefined coding scheme . The whoInductive content analysis situated within the epistemological position of social constructivism served as the basis for the data analysis . Such meThe qualitative content analysis was performed according to the following order: (1) choice of meaning units for the analysis, (2) immersion into research data, (3) open coding, (4) categorization, (5) abstraction, (6) preparation of the research report . In the Here, at varying levels of abstraction, subcategories were both sorted and abstracted into the category or some categories were broken down into subcategories . A totalThe study was conducted following the principles of anonymity, confidentiality, participant security, voluntariness, and authenticity of the research data . That isIn order to ensure the trustworthiness and credibility of the study and to reduce the risk of bias, all researchers were involved in the analytic process, the topics purified were comprehensively discussed, and the interpretations provided were based on exhaustive quotations. Besides, detailed interview guides prepared prior to the study ensured that the same questions would be given to investigated persons, this way avoiding interview bias.The research data collected were not modified, corrected, and were accepted as valuable data that could affect any study outcome unforeseen prior to the study.Every qualitative study and its findings should be of high quality. To achieve this, qualitative research must be rigorous , that isCredibility is related to the study itself and refers to confidence in how the data obtained during the research and the data analysis process correspond to the selected research. Primarily, the credibility of this study can be proved by the selection of the research context, participants and the approach to gathering data .Research participants chosen in this study were interviewees with different perspectives, which contributed to richer variations of the phenomena under study. The semi-structured interview as the most appropriate method of data collection enabled to collect the necessary amount of data that is required to answer the research question in a credible way . The facAnother aspect of trustworthiness is dependability. That aspect is an assessment of the quality of the integrated processes of data collection, data analysis, and theory generation and how well the research findings are supported by the data . In the The use of the purposive sampling strategy ensured appropriate choice of research participants who have diverse experience, which led to rich, thick and detailed description of the phenomena. Researchers’ deep understanding of the field of study before conducting the interviews and remaining “outsiders” facilitated acceptance and rapport with coaches during the interviews. Prepared and tested research guidelines enabled to ensure that participants were asked the same question to attempt to prevent bias between interviews . SeekingOne more aspect of trustworthiness is transferability, which is related to the approach that the findings of the conducted research can be applied in other settings or groups. However, only readers of the study can make a decision about transferability of findings to another context . To thisContent analyses of interview transcripts were conceptually grouped into 12 subcategories and 3 main categories revealing coaches’ opinion regarding elements of the internal environment that exists or is being formed in organized sport, which can be favorable for emergence and dynamics of bullying .The analysis of responses shows that the category “Interrelationships” encompasses the attitude to the athlete from the perspective of interpersonal relationships, existing in sport, which encourages greater turnover of athletes. This category is detailed by sub-categories such as “Conveyor” principle, Pursuit of the “collective good,” Athlete’s personal qualities, Bullying as “natural selection.” The names of some of the sub-categories are expressed in metaphors, this way emphasizing the long-standing traditions of the attitude. The category “Sports professionals’ behavior” is associated with behavioral patterns of sports organization’s employees, which are favorable to the existence of bullying. This category consists of sub-categories such as Unethical behavior, Systems of punishments, Denial of bullying and Changing the connotation. The third category “Management of interrelationships” reveals managerial practices within sports organizations, contributing to escalation of bullying or making prevention ineffective. This is related to Refusal/transfer of responsibility, Ineffective staff improvement activity, Uncertainty of rules and Limited understanding of bullying management.The coaches’ demonstrated attitude came to prominence, showing that they could treat the athlete as a “product” that they use in their work activities to reach the organization’s or their aims:“…first-graders come, learn for four or six years and they leave. Again, I get novices and my vicious circle. There is natural selection in my work. I raise the product, give it away, take the new product again, again I grow it, give it away. Everything goes naturally” (1I).In other words, the depersonalized attitude toward the athlete comes to prominence, and the coaching process turns into the implemented “conveyor principle.” Athletes change each other, and such attitude eventually becomes more and more acceptable personally to the coach, because personal responsibility for the process of athletes’ drop out disappears. The explanation of participant 5I shows that during training, coaches are not that much encouraged to look for specific reasons but to justify the turnover as the “natural process”:because you would start looking for something that you might be doing wrong that some team members leave, others come”; “ < … > but both in all workshops and trainings, it’s really natural so-called change: “don’t worry, coaches”; “ < … > this [withdrawal] is based on curiosity, interest in sport types at a certain age period: boys still want to try out one or another area until they find their favourite area and the like” (5I).“…Such approach, like a refrain, is also repeated in the responses of participants 3I and 4I, suggesting a well-established simplified thinking tradition, which may hinder an adequate evaluation of the influence of bullying on athletes’ decisions to leave the team. The athlete’s depersonalization is related to the logic of the “collective good” -yet another trend of the “simplified” approach to coaching and relationships in the team. This trend is most clearly revealed in the explanation of participant 2I:there were several withdrawals during this year, when you see that if you withdraw that player from the team, the collective will become more harmonious and, to sum up, the results will be better. You have to do this because the player does not tune to the team, he is separated from all, doesn’t integrate into the collective and you see that it will sooner or later influence the results on the court…” (2I).“…“… either he must be that super-boxer, so that I am guaranteed that he will become the European champion, then okay. Then you would try to manage him…” (6I). That is, the presumed “value” of the athlete determines the relationships with the athlete; therefore, at the same time, there appears the danger of indulging the promising athlete for his/her behavior. Moreover, the coach’s attitude may also be influenced by the opinion formed among athletes about individual team members, as illustrated by statements of participant I1:The participant transfers the responsibility for “integration” to the athlete himself. Creating “good” for the collective, this is most often associated with the image of the strong team or winner, and the latter is inseparable from understating of the weaker. The coach, who can make decisions as to who will stay for training with him, plays a considerable role in this change. This may be influenced by the subjective assessment of the young athlete, performed considering his talents: because they are weaker. Come, see that oh, I took the wrong road, I still have to learn a lot here. And gets that kind of response, that, well, coach, it’s not that we’re disturbed here, but. And she sees, I got into the wrong medium. I need a step lower or, well, I need to withdraw from here. So, that’s it. Natural here, I think, selection. Natural. Weaker is weaker…” (1I).“…“. he isn’t physically weak, and he is a gifted child, but he is psychologically weak. He is very weak psychologically” (6I). There is an attitude that having encountered bullying, only psychologically firm athletes can remain, in whose behavior coaches envisage manifestations of aggression that are desirable to the athlete:In this process of change, in the coach’s opinion, an important role is played by the athlete’s personality traits determining resistance to emerging or existing destructive relationships in sport. Only the strongest athletes firmly remain in the athlete’s role; therefore, coaches particularly emphasize athletes’ psychological weakness, which often leads to departure from the team when the child comes to the first training session, most often, if he is more sensitive, he is sneered at, of course, sneering is not that sharp, maybe he may not come to the next training session, but the child who is slightly stronger, as I say, psychologically, he comes and, as I say, this is such slight bullying. naturally selects those children in martial arts, it is not a bad thing this because the child must have some character traits-of the fighter, if he surrenders, then…” (3I).“…finally, shouting that you can’t, don’t do, some sort of shouting at some other leader, teammate can expel him instantaneously” (5I). That is, this negative communication is used instrumentally, in order to expel the athlete from the team.In other words, bullying tends to be justified and treated positively as “natural selection”. In other words, bullying tends to be justified and treated positively as “natural selection”. The turnover may be also caused by degrading mastery in the presence of other persons: “. “. and how we say: if the coach doesn’t shout at you, you are written off”, which implies that such coach’s behavior is permanently demonstrated during training sessions and competitions. The top managers of the organization himself demonstrates unethical behavior, manifesting itself by disrespect to people around him:Coaches’ experiences related to bullying in sport also highlighted the specific behavior of coaches or sports organization’s leaders, determined by sports context. However, although the behavior “favorable” for manifestation of bullying in sport can be described as intolerable, it exists in sport, and top managers of sports organizations get involved in it. This is revealed by the sub-category “Unethical behavior”. I1 participant’s answer gives prominence to the opinion that the shouting coach is the norm: and sometimes I didn’t really like him (top manager) that he would use some kind of swear words in the presence of those, my teenagers. So, he would use these curse words and this way sometimes would speak not nicely about women…” (7I).“…On the one hand, this way, such offensive utterances form an intimidating environment and are legitimized as a certain norm in the eyes of athletes; on the other hand, the message is sent that similar attacks from team members will not be addressed at the management level. Intolerable behavior in sport is also revealed through the “system of punishments” existing in every team. The system of punishments and rules can be dictated by the coach or his delegated team captain, and they may be related to the efficiency or usefulness of the team member’s participation in the workouts and the play. The statements of participant 2I shows that both rulemaking and decisions are left “to themselves”, trusting formal leaders:these rules are formed by team coaches, the team captain and there already they, after that, in the collective those punishments, if they are late or something, they settle themselves” (2I).“…However, the punishments applied are not defined in the written form but performed at the discretion of the coach:because of bad behaviour just can be expelled from the team, suspended within the limits of a certain norm, certain sanctions in the team’s internal management: to miss the match, miss the tournament and the like. Bad behaviour, disrespect to the coach-please leave the gym, from the team go home, out of the gym. Comes, if apologizes, discussion, etc…” (5I).“…“. well, there you seat him for five to ten minutes to watch the workout. Such punishments, gentle, non-physical. < . > Of course, older is older, but in the team of small ones very strictly with that” (4I). In addition, the choice and application of punishments depend on the situation and are ambiguous. For example, the athlete who violated rules misses only that match that seems unimportant to the coach. As shown by the explanation of 5I, there are no rules and the system of punishments clearly described for everyone:It is stated that punishments are applied for breaches of public conduct rules, but it is significant that sanctions are differentiated by age: age gives the privilege not to follow rules: to exclude players from the team composition in the unimportant match, not to allow to play, to see what the player likes a lot or is waiting for some tournament or other things. preventive these things. It works very well. Especially leader players who, you see that they love that sport but violate ethics” (5I).“…“. the children themselves then understand that we will be able to watch, talk to each other afterwards, later” (4I). This way, unethical behavior is merely transferred from the public to the private space. Another related aspect of the problem is avoidance to recognize the existence of bullying in the team by diverting attention to other teams. This comes to prominence in the response of participant 1I:That is, more freedom of behavior is given even in negative aspects, especially if the athlete is considered beneficial to the team. This paves the way to the abuse of the existing position. In addition, it becomes clear that the rules of “ethical” behavior apply to athletes only during the training: but in my work, in my team, there is no such. Such event, cases. No. Maybe you should look in the boys’ group. For sure they curse at each other and everything there” (1I).“…“. of course, sneering is not so sharp” (3I) or to reduce its significance, relating to age:Besides, it is aimed to understate bullying itself, trying to change the connotation of the bullying action in the older age, bullying somehow, maybe sneering exists but it takes a very different form than in children’s sport, where those children react much more sensitively. < . > Bullying in the older age greatly alters the form and goes to the background” (3I).“…In other words, bullying among children and young people is treated as natural and it is believed that this is resolved naturally when athletes grow up. This demonstrates that the nature and role of bullying in the sport team are insufficiently perceived and such attitude on one hand, can be the means of disguising incompetence and on the other hand, creates favorable conditions for existence of bullying.The subcategory distinguished in this category is “Transfer of responsibility” indicating the trend to transfer responsibility for the sports training as a psychosocial process of interaction to other persons. Often the quality of emerging interpersonal relationships and its consequences are not important for sport organization management. This is evidenced by the coach’s observations that responsibility for that is given over to others, and, first and foremost, to the coach, and the latter transfer responsibility to parents:I don’t know in this organization, we, the educators are familiar with these manifestations and preventions, and, I think that management probably trusts us” (1I). “. in that period up to the age of sixteen, parents have to bear that burden, because parents primarily must teach that they can’t jeer, can’t jeer at the smaller ones and that they have to show a good example during the match themselves. They can’t shout using swear words at opponents’ children or somehow otherwise. They can’t let children write on Facebook what they want and how they want. It’s purely parental responsibility, because the coach’s job is to train him, parents educate” (2I).“…In other words, the significance of athletes’ negative behavior is perceived, but responsibility is not shared-it is refused by transferring it to others. Therefore, measures that could help to solve the problem of bullying remain unfulfilled. In order to avoid bullying in sport, it is very important to have rules governing sports participants’ behavior in the organization and follow them. The sub-category Uncertainty of rules reveals how and what rules are developed in organized sport; i.e., in a particular sport type or organization. Often there are no written rules of conduct, which possibly gives freedom to behave negatively, because “. it’s important that only the goal is achieved” (1I). In such case, the rules are formed by every coach personally “. and they exist everywhere” (6I). Hence, so many coaches, so many rules. The absence of uniform written rules usually allows to interpret them freely, especially when the regulatory power is delegated to athletes depending on the status defined by their age:Well, first of all, it is I who sets those rules. I tell how they should behave during training sessions, matches regarding respect to the opponent, to the judge” (1I). “. what is not permitted, of course, only the coach. The coach stops. Well, actually, among those older ones there are cases when they are stopping each other: “Will you stop here? What you, what are you doing here?” There are cases when he comes after school tired, tired of everything, and you see that he is in a bad mood, so if you. if you still him… If in addition to that you say something, then the reaction becomes totally angry, then I see that these older ones themselves are already halting: “Will you finish, what’s wrong with you, go home to rest, you’ll come the next day” (8I).“Absence of objective rules defined by the organization paves the way to subjective use of power, which does not guarantee impartiality and fairness. While coaches are creating rules, a peculiar philosophy also comes to prominence, dominated by “. thinking that there must be tough environment in the team so that they (athletes) harden and so that afterward they show the result on the court” (2I). In other words, violent actions can be perceived as a pedagogical measure. Such environment naturally allows the formation of negative relationships grounded on bullying of the weaker ones. This is a stagnated culture of athletes’ development:no coaches have changed for almost thirty years. And you have already seen many generations of these learners. And now you see those generations” (2I).“…The latter can be associated with coaches mentioned insufficient staff improvement in the sports organization (distinguished sub-category “Ineffective staff improvement activity”):educators are given more attention, all educators, but in physical education, sports centres such as seminars or still something else, no, there are not that many tools as at school” (3I).“…“. we are just improving ourselves if we want. We’re raising our qualification. Listening to seminars or lectures on that subject. But such, well, from management, that word special, there is no such really. Nothing like gathering sports centres and conducting something like that, no” (1I). However, the “wish” highlighted by 2I is, unfortunately, not equally strong with all coaches:This leads to the situation in which the ability to envisage bullying taking place among athletes and effectively manage them becomes the matter of every coach. However, the prerequisite for that is the very coach’s wish: “…actually, all that burden to avoid bullying depends on the coach’s competencies. And there are various coaches. Coaches are of one or another type, and I really know that they make the environment favourable to bullying, but you can’t solve somehow without proofs. Such mentality, such thinking that the environment in the team must be tough, so that they harden, so that they then show the result on the court…“ (2I).In principle, this corresponds to the stereotype in the society that the army or sport, where relationships grounded on bullying exist, is a kind of “school of masculinity.” In organized sport, this also determines coaches’ individual understanding of bullying management. Coaches’ willingly presented personal insights on bullying management methods disclose a distinct lack of knowledge. It is stated that bullying prevention requires educational measures, but it is evident that they are not guided by such measures in their team and do not familiarize their trained athletes with that, as shown in the explanation given by I1:well, only by education, of course. By explanation about consequences, what may be bad. Well, that, well, not only bad for you, but that you, that you were offended by someone, but for that offender too, he also has to feel bad. Should feel because he is also problematic. I don’t know, I relate this to education and explanation. And that well. well, that’s the coach’s key role. The coach’s, parents” (1I).“…“. a personal conversation with the athlete, being not afraid to involve parents too, if they are willing to speak with you” (8I). Naming other measures to guide bullying prevention, it is attempted to imply that these may be talks taking various forms “. we need to talk, for example, to them both together and with each separately” (4I) or organized joint events “.some celebrations should also be arranged” (4I). During the interview, the coach’s understanding about bullying as intolerable behavior comes to prominence (sub-category “Limited understanding about bullying management”); therefore, based on the authority right given by the coach’s role, attempts are made to simulate preventive actions:According to coaches, it is necessary to involve parents, although it is recognized that there is no clear system and knowing how to do this: we, how, say, at the micro level, coaches-team leaders are responsible for that prevention, for those individual programs. Each of us can prepare them, action plans individually: we will organize events, social and the like to reduce bullying, some meetings with athletes and the like…” (5I).“…Coaches do not underline the organization’s responsibility for interpersonal relationships in the sport performance, besides, efforts to hide emerging conflict situations from the organization’s management come to prominence.I really can’t answer what is going on at the sports school’s level. I haven’t encountered that, I try to figure it out myself, within the team, so somehow I don’t even know if there is anything there…” (8I).“…This creates a vicious circle where the organization does not care about the development of coaches’ competencies in the field of bullying management, does not establish uniform rules, transferring responsibility to the coach, who is interested in hiding incidents from the organization’s management.This study confirms that the quality of coach-athlete interpersonal interactions depends on a broader organizational context . The resThese three interrelated levels that crystallized during the analysis respond to a widely accepted model of organizational behavior, which can help to discover solutions enabling to improve the performance of the organization as a whole . In addiAt the first, the micro level, attention is drawn to the individual’s behavior, and specific interrelationships along with the resulting athletes’ turnover in teams are revealed. This level is also supported by the very conception of bullying, which reveals that bullying occurs when individuals establish permanent relationships. However, the social context is particularly important for that as well, as without it, bullying acts are not possible . AlthougIn the first case, the coach’s behavior is oriented to the search for the most useful athlete, pushing out unsatisfying candidates. To achieve this, the coach uses both psychological impact measures to get rid of the unwanted athlete and the dynamics of bullying taking place in the team, which he implicitly approves of. Approval comes to prominence in the attempts to understate the harm of bullying in stereotypical attitudes, justifying the winner’s priority. In this context, the winner’s image is associated with the so-called psychological strength, which is perceived as the competitors’ psychological crushing or the ability to resist such crushing. In the second case, unfair competition among athletes, seeking to push out the unwanted person, shows up.Therefore, the constant turnover of athletes, noticed at the micro level, can signal bullying-related problems existing in the team. Other studies analysing key determinants of drop out of sport also distinguish behavior of coaches and teammates . SeekingThe second, mezzo level is directed to the team’s/group’s management that is implemented through sports professionals’ (coaches’) behavioral strategies. They are entrenched by an authoritarian governance style and require a justification for rude behavior. The learning theory explains why bullying can remain viable in the organizational environment , and theSuch behavior of the sports professional can be explained by the power of authority given to him/her; i.e., coaches are considered “.an authority figure and often must be firm and exercise that authority” , p. 112,Finally, the third, macro level shows the lack of management practices of the sports organization implementing organized sports activities, related to interrelationships management. Although recent research emphasizes the problem of bullying in sport and the need for effective prevention and intervention , leadersThe lack of interpersonal relationship management practice is also determined by the ineffective coach development system, the gaps of which are also reasoned by the lack or even absence of coaches’ knowledge related to the protection of rights of children playing sports, found by research . A betteThis study deepens the understanding of the reasons for the viability of bullying in the sports organization and explains its durability from the perspective of the well-established coaching culture. Therefore, the evaluation of the conditions that support and promote bullying in the sports environment enables to take further actions to ensure the environment that is safer for athletes and more favorable for their training.Creation of such environment requires to pay attention to the critical factors manifesting themselves at three levels. The constant change of athletes, noticed at the micro level, can signal problems existing in the team, which should be divided into two generalized groups: unfair competition among athletes, seeking to push out the unwanted person, and the coach’s behavior orientated to the search for the most useful athlete, pushing out unsatisfying candidates. In this case, the coach uses both psychological impact measures to get rid of the unwanted athlete and the dynamics of bullying taking place in the team, which he implicitly approves of. Coaches acting at the mezzo level are creating a specific environment of athletes’ interrelationships, which is based on the traditions existing in sport and individual intentions of coaches themselves. Along with that, the research discloses the lack of ethics and athletes’ interrelationships management competencies, which is not eliminated by the organization keeping itself aloof. Although coaches formally act in the sports organization, their expressed position and the lack of regulation signal the peculiarly existing autonomy at the mezzo level, tolerated by the organization’s aloof management, which assesses the team’s performance as a final result of activities but does not take responsibility for internal processes.In summary, it can be stated that the results of the study pose managerial and ethical challenges, as organizations must change well-established attitudes and take responsibility for the creation of the safe sports environment that becomes a priority for coordinated actions of the coach and the organization’s management.The insights of this study can serve as a basis for more detailed research on the bullying phenomenon in sports organizations. This study highlighted the use of bullying by coaches as an illicit instrument seeking to eliminate unwanted athletes; therefore, in the future, more detailed studies should be conducted to explain the causes of this trend, related to the regulations of team formation, sports organization’s management and the principles of submitting appeals regarding coaches’ behavior. It also makes sense to further explore why athletes who have experienced team members’ and coaches’ unethical behavior withdraw and how the organizations’ anti-bullying policy influences that. The study was conducted in Lithuanian sports organizations; therefore, in the future, it would make sense to repeat it in other countries, highlighting cultural variables.jolita.vveinhardt@lsu.lt.The datasets presented in this article are not readily available because they are collected in Lithuanian. Requests to access the datasets should be directed to author of the article JV, The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by the Lithuanian Sports University Ethics Committee of Social Sciences. Written informed consent for participation was not required for this study in accordance with the national legislation and the institutional requirements.Both authors participated and contributed in study design, data collection, analysis and interpretation, writing and original draft preparation.The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.