Instruments and their makers: a study of experiment, collaboration and identity in seventeenth-century London

Scarlett, Joshua Anthony

Instruments and their makers: a study of experiment, collaboration and identity in seventeenth-century London

Resource type

Doctoral thesis

Creator (person)

Scarlett, Joshua Anthony

Date published

2022

Abstract

This thesis argues that the history of instruments of science has neglected to focus on the materiality of the physical artefacts for too long. A material cultural approach therefore provides a useful corrective to the technology-based studies. This neglect means much of the wider social and cultural use and function of the objects during the seventeenth century has not been fully appreciated by historians. This is especially true because of the relative absence of detailed documentary evidence in archives for how instruments were made. However, a ‘one-size-fits-all’ material methodology does not work because the multiplicity of types of objects is reflected in their traditional categories (Bennett/Baker et al). Why? In short: the definition of ‘instrument’ changed during the period 1650 – 1730, in the face of new technologies emerging in the early century. The meaning of ‘instrument’ therefore evolved from ‘precise’ mathematical devices used for practical application, to novel and curious luxury objects such as telescopes and microscopes, that were consumed as desirable collectables, rather than used as mathematical tools. This is evident in the material qualities of many objects, reflective of the contemporary demands and tastes, as well as in advertising techniques from the time that demonstrate a widening clientele for more novel instruments for entertainment. As a result of this change in definition of ‘instrument’, the contemporary understanding of who and what a ‘maker’ was began to expand too, as social boundaries crossed, and users became consumers and both groups assumed a greater agency. The nature of collaboration in production was different for separate instruments. The traditional distinction between different roles and makers changed. Whereas Hooke may have been a hybrid figure, as optical instrument making grew, the ‘maker’ came to be the workshop owner, without claims to invention or commission.