Whereas his contemporaries were explicitly aware that the limits of memory called for scrupulous arrangement of one’s papers, Boyle’s papers remained chaotic throughout his life, necessitating a habitual recourse to memory. This invites consideration of Boyle’s views on the use of memory and notes, taking account of the precepts and options of his day. Like many other early modern virtuosi, Boyle made copious notes comprising both textual extracts and empirical information, but he did not maintain large commonplace books of the kind recommended by Renaissance humanists; nor did he publicize an account of his note‐taking methods, as John Locke did. However, through his early contacts with Samuel Hartlib, Boyle was exposed to the ways in which diverse information could be noted, stored and used. Furthermore, his practice exemplified the well‐known dual function of notes as both prompting memory and relieving it. Boyle did not pause to write a sustained essay on these issues; nevertheless, scattered throughout his prefaces, advertisements, works, notebooks and manuscripts there are significant comments on his practice of making what he called ‘loose notes’. Boyle was aware of the kinds of notes he kept and his reliance on both memory and notes as prompts to reflection and thought.