View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE

provided by National Museums Scotland Research Repository

Engels, W and Staubermann, Klaus (2016) Replicating early 18th century practice Bulletin of the Scientific Instrument Society (130); 2016. pp. 40-43. ISSN 0956-8271

http://repository.nms.ac.uk/1678

Deposited on: 29 September 2016

NMS Repository – Research publications by staff of the National Museums Scotland

http://repository.nms.ac.uk/ Replicating 18th Century Magic Lantern Practice

Wolfgang Engels, Klaus Staubermann1

When the Royal Society celebrated its 350th anniversary in 2010 it launched a wide range of public activities and events to stimulate the public’s interest in science and its history. National Museums Scotland were able to secure a RS350 grant to com- mission an early 18th century magic lantern replica in order to better understand his- toric projection practices and make them accessible to broad audiences. This chap- ter aims to explore the design and perfor- mance with this replica and tries to situate it in a broader culture of projection tech- nology and public performances during the late 17th and early 18th century. We will also look at different traditions of designing and employing magic lanterns and their chang- ing roles in public spectacle. Magic lantern projectors as we know them were introduced in the 17th century, when the Jesuit priest project- ed images with what he called a ‘lantern’ in Rome during the 1640s. The first reported lecture based on projected images dates from 1653 or 1654 when the Jesuit André Tacquet showed painted transparent pic- tures of a journey from China to the Neth- erlands undertaken by a fellow member of Fig. 1 Illustrations of three early magic lanterns like those in the Kassel Museum, from his order, Martin Martini. By 1659 the device Johann Zahn, Oculus artificialis teledioptricus, etc. (c. 1685), p. 253. had been refined to its most definitive fea- tures by the Dutch scholar Christiaan Huy- gens, though he apparently did not perform focusable object lens and is projected onto way back from Italy in 1699 but Karsten with it. By 1672 the ‘laterna magica’ was a screen.3 Gaulke and Bjoern Schirmeier at the Kassel produced in large numbers in Germany. It Cabinet have convincingly argued that the Compared to the large numbers in which was seen as a toy - produced in larger num- lanterns were almost certainly produced by these lanterns were produced at the time bers by the Nurenberg toy maker Griendel a local maker in Kassel.5 – but also as an object of scholarly activity. only very few still exist. There are many ex- It was reportedly used in an experimental planations for the absence of early lanterns For conservation reasons most original his- lecture given by professor Johann Christian but a key role might have played that these torical instruments are not allowed to be Sturm in Nuremberg at that time. Magic devices often were not considered ‘scientif- operated again and so it is almost impos- lantern slides soon became part of the ic’ instruments but commodities and toys. sible to learn anything about their practi- anatomy lectures of the Würzburg scholar One museum that still has a small number cal performance, required skills and opera- Johann Zahn (Fig. 1). By 1705 lantern im- of early magic lanterns in its collections is tional knowledge of those delicate histori- ages were used in lectures on national and the Cabinet for Astronomy and Physics in cal devices. The magic lantern at Landgrave biblical themes as well as natural history Kassel. It was one of the Kassel lanterns Karl’s court exhibited at the Orangerie in and mathematics. Around the same time ex- (Fig. 2) we decided to replicate (see Fig. Kassel is such a piece of science and hand- 4 perimenters such as the mathematician Er- 3). This lantern forms part of a set of three, craft. This is why we decided to revitalise hard Weigel in Jena embarked on attempts which show striking similarities but also in- the lantern through its replication. Our to move these pictures mechanically.2 By triguing differences. All lanterns show simi- replica of the original instrument is in full the 18th century the lantern projector had larly shaped containers, lens mountings, working order and closely follows the origi- become a common device for both enter- chimneys, decoration, and colour schemes nal design. We carried out various practical tainment and study all over Europe. It went (white with blue highlights). Interestingly, experiments in order to learn about the through several changes but the technical whereas two lanterns have low stands, one optical performance and how to operate principle stayed the same: a light source has a tall one. And whereas two lanterns the oil-lamp, the mirror and the lens. The is placed in a container where its illumi- carry relatively plain decoration, one is dec- findings during the research for the re- nation is increased by a concave mirror. orated in a highly elaborate way. One lan- enactment of the lantern’s demonstrative A transparent picture is placed in front of tern features a circular slide revolver (see performance generated significant informa- the light source (later with an added con- Fig. 1), and only one lantern still contains tion about its characteristics and triggered denser lens) and the light shining through an object lens. There had been some specu- in addition new questions. Therefore, our this slide becomes enlarged by means of a lation that these lanterns had been bought project has to be understood as a work in by the Duke of Hesse in Nuremberg, on his progress.6

40 Bulletin of the Scientific Instrument Society No. 130 (2016) When we visited the instrument for the cal direction. In the middle of first time, we were very much surprised the rear cap we find a hole in by its appearance. Situated in a cabinet axial alignment with a second of scientific instruments, we expected to one drilled through the middle find a noble splendid instrument, perhaps of the mirror. The mirror of the with some damages obtained during the lantern is fixed to the rear cap centuries, but this magic lantern seemed by soldering. This construction not to fit into the category of glass-brass- renders the mirror impossible to mahogany devices so well esteemed by the be adjusted which in turn causes public then and now. It was not in a poor occasionally poor illumination condition at all and seemed a completely of the slides especially because different piece of collection: on first sight of the need of making full use the lantern looks poorly done i.e. not manu- of the very poor light of the oil- factured by an artist but rather a plumber lamp. The need for adjustment is or a tinsmith. The body of the lantern is not possibly the reason for the hole made of brass or another valuable or shiny through the rear cap, which looking material but out of tin-coated sheet to us appears not to carry any metal. Also, the lantern had been painted other function. It can be specu- and coated very ‘amateurishly’ or roughly. lated that the lantern maker In this respect the most interesting ques- has drilled this hole in order to tion for us was: Is this magic lantern in the manipulate the direction of the collection of Landgrave Karl indeed part light beam to the slide. This con- of his collection or did it end up there by clusion leads us to ‘modify’ the some accident, and how did it get into the replica by using holes that were collection then? Remarkable in this respect drilled at the same position into is that other lanterns of the collection are cap and mirror together with a manufactured in the same way and awk- simple manipulator made from ward style even though we find different a screw, a small sphere, a spring sizes and varying versions of the slides and some nuts. This simple mechanisms (revolving-type, etc.). mechanism enabled that despite the orientation of the rear cap, The rough surface coating of the lanterns which couldn’t be fixed every was one of their more unusual features. time exactly in the same manner, While coating techniques existed to a very the best possible illumination high standard at the time the lanterns were could be contrived without any produced, the surfaces are painted very problem. roughly. Also, the paint is lead white paint which even in the late seventeenth and ear- The mirror itself consists of pol- ly eighteenth century was only used for sur- ished brass sheet metal and we face coating rather than refined paintwork.7 could not find any visible traces More interestingly, the paint shows few of silvering. This at first was sup- signs of heating, as one would expect after posed to be due to repeated pol- use with a lantern. Only a brighter shade of ishing of the mirror during the Fig. 2 The original lantern in the Kassel Cabinet, white on one of the lanterns’ funnels indi- centuries, but experiments with painted in white and blue which are the heraldic cates a possible re-painting. The white with silvered mirrors told another colours of the district of Kassel. blue colour scheme are the colours of the story. From the present point district of Kassel (Landkreis Kassel), and it of view silvered mirrors would can be imagined that the lanterns served a has been made in a similar way which has be needed but this depends on representative role rather than a functional been executed by a beading-machine and modern white light sources. Of course the one during their later career. This repre- in addition by punching the sheet. Inside a newly silvered mirror made from watch sentative role is supported by a slide found cardboard-tube, which serves as a lens-tube, glass was more reflective but not much with one of the lanterns, showing an im- a second tube made from sheet metal is in- more than the new polished brass-type. The age of a noblewoman. We will return to the serted. Along with an iron spring it fixes the difference is due to the colour of the oil- uses of these lanterns later. lens in its position. There is no indication lamp, which is very different from modern sources and so the illumination of the slide Aside from the mirror made from brass the that a second lens was being used. The focal in both cases seems reddish. It is hardly lantern is completely manufactured out of length is 135mm. The lens itself is greenish possible to distinguish the colour and the tinned sheet metal, which is joined togeth- and obviously original; certainly an old one. brightness on the screen between the two er either by soldering or crimping. Certain- The appearance of the lens-tube generates types. It is therefore possible that the mir- ly a special crimping machine must have an impression of a prototype shape. ror itself is in original condition, and with been in use in order to perform the needed The oil-lamp inside is mounted to the lan- the illuminating power of the replica we joints. This means that the use of this tool tern by an arrangement that allows adjust- were able to show the image quality was which is restricted to special applications, ing the flame horizontally into a suitable completely satisfactory; the benefit of sil- is pointing to professionals and not to position in front of the mirror. It is not pos- vering the mirror seems negligible. some kind of tinkering. The ornamentation sible to move or adjust the lamp in verti-

Bulletin of the Scientific Instrument Society No. 130 (2016) 41 Fig. 3 a) and b) The replicated lantern and wooden slide holder and the replicated oil- lamp assembly.

The replicated lantern (Fig. 3), which we from other types of magic lanterns at the continued practical use. This is reflected in manufactured in identical dimension and time? In order to answer this question it features such as the strong metal work and shape, shows a satisfying performance is worthwhile to contrast the Kassel lan- thick surface coating. mainly because the geometrical design and tern and our replication of it with another Contemporary paintings of historic lan- the optical components are perfectly co- magic lantern of the same period, the one terns point at historic practices at the court ordinated. This shows that the lantern had made by the Leiden instrument maker Jan of Hesse-Kassel and indicate that both per- been made to serve as a lantern and not van Musschenbroek for the scholar Willem forming shows as well as handling the lan- as a mere lamp. This insight is not entirely Jacob ‘s Gravesande, and now kept at the terns by various people were part of the new. It is the instrument-maker and histo- Museum Boerhaave in Leiden.9 This lantern original entertainment. From replicating rian of optics, Paul Liesegang, who points made by van Musschenbroek is quite dif- historic performance, we know that the us towards understanding the historic ferent in design as it is built as a wooden sturdy nature of the lantern would have development from lamps to lanterns such ‘’ rather than an actual metal lan- been essential for theses demonstrations. as the one found in Kassel. Liesegang in his tern (Fig. 4).10 It has several features that Satirical and humorous images were likely work on the development of the early mag- indicate a rather scientific way of using part of the home entertainment, whereas ic lantern distinguishes magic lanterns such it: almost all parts can be moved or ad- representational images, including arms, as described by Athanasius Kircher and oth- justed, from the height of the stand to all were used on more official occasions. It ers and an earlier tradition he traces back side openings, to the arrangement of the would not be surprising if because of the to the so-called bull-eye lantern (‘Blendlat- burner. This design is quite different from sturdy nature of the lantern these were erne’). Using such lanterns in conjunction that of the Kassel lantern, which hardly used for outdoor presentations such as city with projected images, Liesegang argues, allows for active experimenting with the illuminations as well.11 predates the magic lantern by some cen- apparatus. It certainly indicates that these turies. Both types of lanterns included fea- two lanterns originate from very different Performing in outdoor spaces situates lan- tures such as a concave mirror, an oil light contexts, both in their making and in their terns in a context less explored by histori- and a projection lens and by the middle use. ‘s Gravesande had intended his lantern ans of magic lanterns so far, their employ- of the seventeenth century both lantern as an experimental device, an expression of ment in stage technology and Baroque pub- designs merged to what we perceive as the visual culture of seventeenth and eight- lic spectacle. During the seventeenth and magic lanterns today. Makers in the Ger- eenth century Netherlands. The Kassel eighteenth centuries Kassel was one of the man countries such as Sturm, Walgenstein lantern was different in this respect. It was European centres of culture and spectacle. or Zach based their magic lantern designs sturdier, more solidly built and easier to use. Under Landgraf Karl of Hesse-Kassel (1654- on the bull’s eye lantern. Liesegang reminds These features became especially apparent 1730) the architecture and environment of us that bull’s eye lanterns were not uncon- when we employed our lantern replica as the city of Kassel became completely trans- troversial. Because of their not always le- part of our museum activities, events and formed. A harbour and channel, a landscape gal employment such as illegal hunting or outreach. Children could operate the lan- park, impressive water plays, an orangery, fishing, their uses were controlled by local tern which occasionally led to some rough a marble bath and many more landmarks authorities and governments and in some handling and on one occasion to a child were erected under Landgraf Karl, many countries banned completely.8 Simple in literally banging the lantern on the table. inspired by Italian baroque art. Kassel was their design these lanterns could become However, the lantern took this without any also given a new museum for its ‘treasures troubled objects when it came to their uses. damage or parts being broken. The Kassel of art and curiosities’, and moreover, a new lantern was almost certainly designed for theatre. Sources of income to fund such Was the Kassel lantern indeed different

42 Bulletin of the Scientific Instrument Society No. 130 (2016) Technology in Berlin in 2015. 5. Communication with Karsten Gaulke, Kas- sel, 8 July 2010. See also Karsten Gaulke and Bjoern Schirmeier, Optica – Optische Instru- mente am Hof der Landgrafen von Hessen (Petersberg: Michael Imhof Verlag, 2011) 6. We are especially interested in tools and materials here and the related professions and trade guilds, something which we hope to turn into an article for this Bulletin in the not so distant future. 7. The paint analysis with kindly carried out by Dr Volker Koesling at the Deutsches Technikmuseum Berlin in October 2010. 8. Paul Liesegang, Laterna magika und Blendlaterne: Eine geschichtliche Stu- die, in Rundschau für die Installations-, Beleuchtungs- u. Blechindustrie, Vol. 1, p. 42, Sonderdruck, undated, probably 1918/1919. For a more recent discussion of bull eye lanterns see e.g. Deac Rossell, ‚Some Thoughts on the Bull’s Eye Magic Lantern’, New Magic Lantern Journal, 9-5 (2003), pp. 71-75 revised 1/2012 on www. academia.edu/1200403/Nuremberg_and_ the_Bulls-Eye_Magic_Lantern, and Erkki Huhtamo, ‘The Early Magic Lanterns: Whe- re Are They?’, The Magic Lantern Gazette, 19-3 (2007), pp. 11-12. 9. We would like to thank Hans Hooijmaijers and Tiemen Cocquyt for their assistance with examining the Boerhaave lantern. Fig. 4 The lantern in Willem Jacob ‘s Gravesande, Mathematical Elements of Natural Philosophy Confirm’d by Experiments, 1731, Vol. 2, Pl. 14. The lower engraving is of the 10. For ‘s Gravesande’s description of his interior of the magic lantern: a wooden box containing a concave mirror, a lamp, and magic lantern see William-James ‘s Grave- a round hole fitted with a convex lens. sande’ Mathematical Elements of Natural Philosophy confirmed by Experiments, translation, second edition (London, Senex, prestigious projects largely originated from needs to be seen in this context of enlight- Innys, Osborn & Longman, 1726), for com- state funds as well as from early industriali- ened seven- and eighteenth century tech- ments on vision and perception in 17th sation, including textile manufacturing. nology of wonder and spectacle. It was this cen- very culture of both unmasking and creat- tury projection optics: Klaus Staubermann, th State spectacle ranged from the impres- ing illusions by using both technology and ‘Comments on 17 Century Lenses and sive Herkules water plays to street festivals Projection’, in Wolfgang Lefèvre, ed., Inside 12 skill that marked the success of the magic and fireworks. Festivals would often last lantern, both in private and in public. the – Optics and Art un- long into the night and projecting images der the Spell of the Projected Image, Max- in honour of the rulers during the city’s Notes and References Planck-Institut für Wissenschaftsgeschichte, festive illumination was part of the public 1. Carl-von-Ossietzky Universität, Oldenburg, Preprint 333 (Berlin, 2007), pp. 141-145. spectacle. Trials with the replica showed and National Museums Scotland, Edinburgh. 11. Bjoern Schirmeier (note 5), pp. 103-121. that images could be projected well over a distance of five metres or more. In this 2. Paul Liesegang, Zahlen und Quellen zur 12. For fireworks and the broader relation- context it is not surprising to see the Kas- Geschichte der Projektionskunst und Ki- ship of arts and science in the eighteenth sel lantern painted in the state colours. We nematographie (Berlin, 1926), p. 7. century see for example Simon Werrett, can speculate that it was used as part of 3. Ibid. Fireworks (University of Chicago Press, Il- the extensive city illumination on the occa- linois 2010). 4. We would like to sincerely thank Karsten sion of the Hesse government anniversary Gaulke for providing us with access to 13. Bjoern Schirmeier (note 11). in1727.13 Magic lanterns at that time were the Kassel lanterns, supporting us in our 14. Jan already established part of baroque theatre Lazardzig, Theatermaschine und Fe- research and answering our numerous in- technology and representative lantern im- stungsbau (Akademie Verlag, Berlin, 2007), quiries. Preliminary aspects of our research ages would have been displayed together p. 236. were presented at the International Scien- with water plays, fireworks, etc. Under- tific Instrument Symposium in Kassel in standing baroque art in turn is impossible 2011 and a more comprehensive analysis at Authors’ email addresses: without understanding the technology the annual conference of the German Soci- [email protected] and that enabled it.14 The Kassel magic lantern ety for the History of Medicine, Science and [email protected]

Bulletin of the Scientific Instrument Society No. 130 (2016) 43