Failure, Fraud and Instrument Cabinets: Academic Involvement in the Eighteenth-Century Dutch Water Crisis
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
FAILURE, FRAUD AND INSTRUMENT CABINETS: ACADEMIC INVOLVEMENT IN THE EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY DUTCH WATER CRISIS Tiemen Cocquyt In 1788, the newly appointed professor of physics and mathematics, Chris- tiaan H. Damen, was granted permission from the Leiden University Board to dispose of those instruments that were of use “neither for the study of the history of machines, nor for the instruction of physics”.1 If it was Damen’s goal to maintain a well-equipped academic cabinet for physics instruction, he was at the right place. A setting for vacuum and mechani- cal experiments since the 1670s, Leiden University had been among the earliest academic institutions to introduce instruments into its philosophy curriculum.2 This tradition was brought to further heights when, in the first half of the eighteenth century, the professors Willem J. ’s Gravesande and Pieter van Musschenbroek systematized empirical demonstration in their natural philosophy textbooks, and thereby provided a means for the diffusion of Newtonian philosophy on the Continent.3 The canon of demonstration apparatus they had brought together, enlarged with acqui- sitions by their successors, was an enviable collection for anyone wish- ing to enrich their lectures with experimental demonstration. Why was it, then, that Damen felt the urge to clean out parts of this cabinet which had been formed, as he stated himself, “in the cradle and nursery of exper- imental physics”?4 As Peter de Clercq has shown, Damen’s move can be understood by taking into account the declining position the Leiden Cabi- net of Physics was in during the decades following its “highlight period” 1 Peter de Clercq, “The ’s Gravesande Collection in the Museum Boerhaave, Leiden”, Nuncius: Annali di Storia della Scienza 3 (1988), pp. 127–137: 133. 2 Edward G. Ruestow, Physics at Seventeenth and Eighteenth-Century Leiden, The Hague, 1973, pp. 96–112; Gerhard Wiesenfeldt, Leerer Raum in Minervas Haus: experimentelle Natur- lehre an der Universität Leiden, Amsterdam, 2002. 3 Ruestow, op. cit. (n. 2), pp. 113–139. Also see the article of Hans Hooijmaijers and Ad Maas, infra, pp. 27 ff. 4 P. de Clercq, “In de schaduw van ’s Gravesande. Het Leids Physisch Kabinet in de tweede helft van de 18de eeuw”, Tijdschrift voor de Geschiedenis der Geneeskunde, Natuur- wetenschappen, Wiskunde en Techniek 10 (1987), pp. 149–173: 149. 80 tiemen cocquyt under ’s Gravesande.5 In trying to keep up with new developments, there were strategic reasons for Damen to stress the need for innovation to the University Board, while at the same time emphasizing the significance of his predecessors’ achievements. What Damen was doing was shaping the history of his predecessors’ research, and – at a material level – the cabinet and the objects they had brought together. In this article, I want to sketch some events that preceded Damen’s actions, and investigate how, already during the formation of the his- toric cabinet, Leiden professors disseminated their activities along a well- considered strategy. I will set out how the academic authority of the Leiden professors, in an era of growing public awareness for experimental philosophy, was not an immutable achievement, but instead was some- thing that needed to be maintained actively. In keeping up – particularly in their hydraulic investigations – the professors involved themselves in the complex interplay of state affairs, politics, invention and entrepre- neurship. Yet the risks and vulnerabilities, intrinsic to such interplay, are not always included in the textbooks and publications the professors authored. The shaping of stable, systematized experimental philosophy from risky enterprises was a process that was already going on in the times before Damen made a clean sweep of the Physics Cabinet. In the second part of this article I want to illustrate what repercussions this has for instrument cabinets. It will be argued how a more dynamic view of the interaction between public and academy, rather than a one-way model of science dissemination, gives us a different understanding of some of the Physics Cabinet’s “demonstration” instruments. ’s Gravesande and the Wheel of Wonder In 1721 ’s Gravesande spent the summer at the court of the Landgrave Carl of Hessen-Kassel. Contacts between rulers of the German lands and the Leiden experimental community had existed for a longer time; at least since the 1680s, visits of rulers and professors to the Musschenbroek workshop had enriched the German knowledge centres with philosophi- cal instruments and references to them.6 The court of Hessen-Kassel had been particularly active in such exchange of knowledge and technology. 5 Ibid., pp. 171–172. 6 P. de Clercq, At the Sign of the Oriental Lamp: The Musschenbroek Workshop in Leiden. 1660–1750, Rotterdam, 1997, pp. 152–163..