Ian Hopkinson

It’s taken me a while but my next review is of Dutch Light: Christian Huygens and the making of science in Europe by Hugh Aldersey-Williams.

I have read a biography of Christiaan Huygens – Huygens – the man behind the principle by C.D. Andriesse, this was a little over 10 years ago so it says something about my memory that I came to Aldersey-Williams book fairly fresh!

Huygens was born in 1629 and died in 1695, so after Galileo (1564 – 1642) and René Descartes (1596-1650) but before Isaac Newton (1642-1726).

Huygens came from a relatively prestigious family his father, Constantijn was an important diplomat as was his brother (also Constantijn, the Huygens reused forenames heavily!). The family had a broad view of education and his father and brothers were brought up to appreciate, and make, art, music, and drawing as well as learning more academic subjects. Christiaan’s scientific collaboration with his brother continued throughout his life – mainly focussed on lens grinding.

This practical turn had an impact on Huygen’s scientific work, he made the lenses and telescopes that he used to discover the rings of Saturn, and his discovery was sealed with the beautifully drafted illustrations of Saturn’s rings seen at varying orientations relative to earth. It had been known since Galileo’s time that there was something odd about Saturn but telescope technology was such that the rings were not clearly resolved, furthermore as earth changes position relative to Saturn we view the rings at different angles which changes their appearance which added to the confusion over their nature. Having hypothesised that the structures around Saturn were rings, Huygens was able to predict (successfully) when the rings would be oriented edge on to earth and hence disappear.

The Netherlands has given birth to more than its share of astronomers, Aldersey-Williams discusses whether this is a special feature of the landscape: big open skies with reflecting water, material resources – abundant high quality sand for glass/lens making or the culture – in particular the Dutch school of art from the period. He doesn’t come to a firm conclusion on this but gives the book its title.

Huygens work on telescopes and Saturn also led to his more theoretical work on a wave theory of optics and the “Huygens Principle”, something I learnt at school.

Aside from his practical work on astronomy, Huygens was a very capable mathematician – respected by Newton and Leibniz. His work pre-figured some of Newton’s later work, he led the way in describing nature, and observations, with mathematical equations. A was a transitional figure at the cusp of the Scientific Revolution, a pioneer of described observed phenomena using maths – diverging from Descartes who believed that nature could be explained by the power of pure thought.

Huygens also worked on clocks, largely in relation to the problem of the longitude, again this is an example of a combination of practical design skills and mathematical understanding. His main contributions in this area were modifications of pendulum clocks to be more accurate and the invention of a spring driven oscillator – more robust than pendulum driven clocks at sea. In the end his contributions were not sufficient to solve the problem of the longitude, and he also fell out with Hooke over the invention of the spring drive. He also had a dispute with Huret, the clockmaker who implemented his designs. But if you were working in science in the 17th century and didn’t fall out with Hooke, what sort of scientist were you?!

“…the making of science in Europe” in the title of this book refers to Huygens international activities. He was a founding member of the French Academie des Science, courted specifically by its prime mover – Jean-Baptiste Colbert, living in Paris for 16 years between 1666-1672. Colbert’s successor was not as favourable disposed towards Huygens, and when Colbert died in 1683 he left the Academie. Huygens also met and corresponded with scientists in London, at the Royal Society and elsewhere, and across the rest of Europe. This was a time when discoveries, and experimental techniques were being shared more often, if not universally.

Andriesse and Aldersey-Williams both ask why Huygens is not more famous when compared particularly to Newton. I’ve thought about this a bit since reading Andriesse’s book and come to the tentative conclusion that figures like Galileo, Newton, Einstein and Hawking are not famous scientists. They are famous, and they happen to be scientists, they are symbols for a period not necessarily rooted in scientific achievement. Newton was promoted very heavily after his death by the English, and prior to his death he was not only a scientist but also Warden of the Royal Mint, and briefly an MP.

I enjoyed this book more than the Andriesse biography, in both cases it felt that there was perhaps a scarcity of material for Huygens life which led to a great deal of discussion around Huygens father, to the extent that in the early pages it wasn’t clear whether references to Huygens were to Christiaan or his father Constantijn.

This review is of Curious devices and might machines: Exploring Science Museums by Samuel J.M.M. Alberti. I picked this up because I follow a number of history of science and museum people on Twitter. One downside of this is that these are the sort of people that get sneak previews of such books, leaving us mortals a long wait before we get our hands on them!

There are a couple of thousand science museums around the world, out of a total of 30,000 museums globally. About a fifth of the population visits a science museum every year. In the UK the Science Museum Groups gets about 6 million visits a year. Around 100,000 visits a year are required for a museum to be economically viable. There is an overlap between science museums and the more recently instituted "exploratoriums". Science museums have always been technology and science museums, with artefacts actually biased towards the former. Science museum exhibits can be massive (whole aeroplanes and steam engines), they can be commonplace (for example one of billions of mobile phones) and unlike most museums it is not unusual for the public to be able to handle selected parts of the collection. 

The first science museums came into being out of the personal "cabinets of curiosities" found in the Renaissance, they became public institutions in the 18th and 19th century. They were often founded to demonstrate a country’s technological prowess, or provide training for a workforce as the Industrial Revolution occurred. Sometimes scientific workplaces became museums by the passage of time, this was certainly true of the (New) Cavendish Laboratory where I once worked – the spacious corridor outside the suite of labs I worked in contained a collection of objects including James Clarke Maxwell’s desk and some of his models of mathematical functions. It was striking how scientific apparatus transitioned from finely crafter objects in the 19th century to rather more utilitarian designs in the early 20th century. Frank Oppenheimer (brother of Robert Oppenheimer) founded the first Exploratorium in San Francisco in 1969.

Perhaps a little surprisingly, science museum collections have not historically been formed systematically. The London Science Museum started, alongside the Victoria and Albert Museum, with objects from the Great Exhibition, and was boosted by part of the (enormous) Henry Wellcome collection. More recently curators have been proactive – cultivating collectors and research and industry institutions. Acquisition by purchase at auction is less common than in the art museum world but not completely unknown. Sometimes museums will make public appeals for objects, for example during the recent COVID pandemic. It has always been the case that documents, and more recently software and other digital artefacts greatly outnumber "physical" objects. Digital artefacts represent a challenge since for most modern scientific equipment to be useable the software required to run the equipment is required, and speaking from experience it can be challenging to get the software running whilst the equipment is in working use. These documents are either artefacts in their own right (for example railway posters) or documentation relating to a particular object.

Like icebergs much of a science museum collection is away from public view in increasingly specialised storage facilities. Alberti is keen to highlight the vitality and dynamism of storage facilities, curators in general appear reluctant to refer to stores as "stores"! Stores are places where research and conservation happen, sometimes there are hazards to be managed – legacy radioactive materials are an issue both in museums and also in currently operational labs.

Museums present objects in long term exhibitions, and shorter, more focused exhibitions which may move from museum to museum. Exhibitions can be object-led or story-led, and the human stories are an important element. Science museums attract a wide age range. Pierre Boudieu makes an appearance here, as my wife completes her (Doctorate of Education) Bourdieu has been a constant occupant of the mental space of our home. His relevance here is the idea of "scientific capital" to parallel Bourdieu’s "cultural capital". "Scientific capital" refers to all the scientific touch points and knowledge you might have, I have demonstrated my "scientific capital" above, citing my experiences in word class research laboratories, and experience with scientific research. As a scientist from a very young age science museums have been my natural home but this is in large part due to my family rather than formal education.

The book finishes with a chapter on campaigning with collections, covering climate change, racism and colonialism, disability, and mis-information. Museums are held in high regard in terms of confidence in the information they provide, although they see their role more in teaching scientific literacy – supported by the objects they hold – rather than trying to megaphone facts. Many collections contain objects with morally dubious histories, as white Western countries we have typically ignored these issues – the Black Lives Matter movement means this is starting to change.

I think the best way of placing this is as a social history of the science museum – the author cites Richard Fortey’s Dry Store Room 1 as a model/inspiration and talks of the book as a "curator confessional", an entertaining enough read but rather specialist.