Replicating Early 18Th Century Magic Lantern Practice Bulletin of the Scientific Instrument Society (130); 2016
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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 magic lantern 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 Athanasius Kircher 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.