The Origin of the Paris Observatory Contributions to the Study of Early Modern Architecture Ron Jelaco School of Architecture, History and Theory McGill University, Montreal January, 20117 A thesis submitted to McGill University in partial fulfillment of the requirements of Doctor of Philosophy ©Ron Jelaco January, 2017 Abstract This study is predicated on a belief that all works of architecture retain a capacity to manifest, organize, and articulate the everyday existence of the communities who build them. Some works, however, are given extraordinary callings, and respond by setting up not only the daily practices and affairs of their particular historical people but by establishing the meaningful framework for everything that is anything at all. I propose that the Paris Observatory was such a work, standing as the focus for the emergence of a new way of being, and that this emerging world is, in a maturated form, the scientific world in which we live today. Thus, this study brings into sharper clarity our contemporary world in the moments when it was becoming what it is—that is, as it gained structure in the world being forwarded by the Observatory. Given that it is in the capacity of architecture to bring together and harmonize many latent levels of existence, any serious study of this sort must accept as its purview many diverse areas of modern scholarship. In response, the text is built upon six chapters of six semi-distinct historical subjects. My aim is to reassemble these cognate but now-fragmented histories into a more originary and defining whole—that is to say, one along the lines that the Paris Observatory, as a working work of architecture, had naturally assembled in the first place. If allowed the time to unfold in their own ways, some significant pieces of each of these histories will also be enriched, as they can be viewed in the context of the work of architecture that originally grounded them. i Résumé1 Cette étude est élaborée sur la croyance que toutes les œuvres architecturales maintiennent une capacité à manifester, organiser, et articuler l’existence quotidienne des communautés qui les érigent. Toutefois, certaine œuvres sont dotées de vocations extraordinaires et répondent non seulement en établissant les pratiques quotidiennes et affaires des gens à une époque donnée, mais en élaborant le cadre sensé pour tout ce qui peut possiblement être. Je propose que l’observatoire de Paris fût une de ces œuvres en tant que point focal pour l’émergence d’une nouvelle manière d’être, et, que ce monde qui émerge est, en une forme menée à maturité, le monde scientifique au sein duquel nous vivons aujourd’hui. Ainsi, je prévois que cette étude nous éclaire davantage sur notre monde contemporain dans les moments mêmes où il devenait ce qu’il est, c’est-à-dire lorsqu’il prit forme dans le monde transmis par l’observatoire. Comme c’est dans les capacités de l’architecture de rassembler et harmoniser plusieurs niveaux latents d’existences, toute étude sérieuse de cette nature doit accepter comme portée divers domaines de savoir moderne. En réponse, le texte est construit sur six chapitres de six sujets historiques semi-distincts. Mon but est de réassembler ces histoires connexes aujourd’hui fragmentées en un tout originaire et déterminant, c’est-à-dire, un tout qui considère que l’Observatoire de Paris, en tant qu’oeuvre fonctionnelle d’architecture, avait d’emblée naturellement assemblée. Étant accordées le temps de se déployer à leur manière propre, certaines parties significatives de chacune de ces histoires seront aussi enrichies, comme elles peuvent être vues dans le contexte de l’œuvre architecturale sur laquelle elles reposent. 1 Translation by Natacha Boucher. ii Acknowledgements As my work on this project finally ends, the list of the names of those from whom I received help along the way seems endless to me, and I do not pretend that the few acknowledgements I can offer will in any way substitute for the personal thanks that I will find ways to express. Some were so important to me as to now seem essential. First, of course, is my life-partner and co-conspirator, Courtney, whose patience has been tried so many times by me and my constant missions impossible that she is certainly a saint. I wake up thankful that, as far as I can tell, she seems to also enjoy it. Those who know her know why I lead the charmed life that I do. My daughter, Louisa, should know that as we simultaneously wrote—I in a Montréal basement and she at a Washington, DC think-tank—her indefatigable spirit and her dedication to her own deadlines raised my own endurance. Next, I will never forget my editor and muse, Joanne Muzak—an angel, really, who recognizes the value of em dashes—who miraculously saw something in my writing that I hoped might be there. She instantly understood me and my aspirations, and her guidance and encouragement made me want to become a writer. Friends and colleagues Nathalie David and Éric Laurendeau have offered me advice that only decades of friendship could generate. I would next like to mention my academic advisors, especially Nicholas Dew and Robert Berger. Nick graciously adopted me and my project, and provided guidance whenever I asked, even though he had so many students of his own. He patiently viewed my project through my own, naive eyes. At many junctures, I demonstrated that I knew less about what I was doing than would his own undergraduates. Nick instilled in my research a discipline where there was none before. So did Robert, who I believe is the greatest kind of teacher: he knows unapologetically what he knows, which is an absolute treasure-chest of valuable, meticulous learning. He could be tough, frank, and certain—an enforcer of Occam’s Razor— iii but he is also sincerely curious about my own divergent perspectives. Robert was willing to follow me wherever I wanted to go—at least until I could no longer defend myself. In the end, he showed an open appreciation and support for my work that I will never forget. Of course, I will be forever grateful to Alberto Pérez-Gómez, my supervisor, for inviting me to McGill to be part of the incredible intellectual world that had formed around him. From that instant forward my life has been immeasurably enriched. I now follow many new, thoughtful paths. I also thank those professors who read my text and offered their opinions and questions as a part of my defence review. In addition to professors Dew and Pérez-Gómez, McGill professors Faith Wallis, Annmarie Adams, and Martin Bressani all took the time to read my text and tried to understand my point of view. Professor Bressani deserves special thanks. It was in his course that I was first able to develop my interests in understanding and explaining past events and people. He claims to have observed a passion in my investigations, which gives me energy to continue. External examiner J.B. Shank at the University of Minnesota read my text and provided a very helpful review for which I am very grateful. In a list that is unfairly brief, I want to mention a few other special teachers of mine: Bill Sloan at the University of Idaho, and David Leatherbarrow, Peter Carl, and Homa Farjadi at the University of Pennsylvania—all of whom took me seriously at critical moments of my life. If it were not for Bert Dreyfus at Berkeley and Albert Borgmann at the University of Montana, the wisest of all, it would not have been in my imagination to undertake this crazy enterprise. My intellectual heritage is thereby set and I am indeed proud to claim it. There are others who by just doing their jobs made my work so much easier and enjoyable. In the School of Architecture McGill, David Krawitz administered my existence there with aplomb, and Luciana Adoyo was kind, helpful, encouraging, and always gracious. In McGill Library’s Rare Books Collection, Ann Marie Holland and Raynald Lapage were iv always very kind and helpful. In Paris, at the Archives of the Academy of Sciences, Florence Greffe graciously interpreted my debutant French long enough to point to the copy of Tome 1 of the Procès-Verbaux that proved so important to my research. Nicolas Leste-Lasserre, became my key contact, friend, and very gracious host at the Paris Observatory, the building that he adores as much as I do. Our exploration of the Observatory underground will remain a highlight of my life. Dr. Suzanne Débarbat was curious, gracious, and encouraging. Amelia Laurenceau could not have known the profound effect she had on me the day I arrived for the first time at the Observatory, only a few minutes before closing on a Friday afternoon of a three-day weekend. After politely sharing with me the last few minutes of her day, she said, in effect, “don’t break anything,” and trusted me to explore the building on my own, where I stood, alone, bathed in a Paris sunset, on the stairs where the men I would come to know in my research had stood some 350 years earlier. I relish the opportunity to mention some colleagues involved in my work, the amazing thinkers that made up the intellectual world—the golden years, it has been said—of Professor Pérez-Gómez’s world. They all matter to me in private ways and I cherish those memories. In the beginning there was Rafico Ruiz, Jonathan Powers, Diana Cheng, Gül Kale, Edward Houle, Ehsan Daneshyar, Suresh Perera, Maria Elisa Navarro, Negin Djavaherian, Yoonchun Jung, Zubin Singh, Paul Holmquist, and Jason Crow.