uu.seUppsala universitets publikasjoner
Endre søk
RefereraExporteraLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Referera
Referensformat
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Annet format
Fler format
Språk
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Annet språk
Fler språk
Utmatningsformat
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Reading art, reading nature: How microscopic literature formed seventeenth-century readers
Uppsala universitet, Humanistisk-samhällsvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Historisk-filosofiska fakulteten, Institutionen för idé- och lärdomshistoria, Avdelningen för vetenskapshistoria.
2009 (engelsk)Inngår i: Lychnos, ISSN 0076-1648, s. 91-116Artikkel i tidsskrift (Fagfellevurdert) Published
Abstract [en]

This article discusses how two books on microscopical observations, Experimental Philosophy (1664) by Henry Power (1623–1668) and Micrographia (1665) by Robert Hooke (1635–1703) were related to by contemporaries. These books were read by diverse readers who used microscopic observations in forming their own identities. Samuel Pepys (1633–1703), Margaret Cavendish (1623–1673) and Thomas Shadwell (1642 –1692) all read Hooke’s and Power’s books and in their responses one can discern some of the roles microscopy had in early modern English society. What attitude did these readers, who responded from their respective positions, have to the experiences in Micrographia and Experimental Philosophy?

Samuel Pepys read the books as a way of learning the art of microscopy. He sought to fashion himself as a gentleman through microscopic observations of nature. Margaret Cavendish did not relate to microscopy in the same way as Pepys. She used the books on microscopy in her philosophical critique of the experimentalist programme, a critique based on her seeing the microscopic picture as artificial. Thomas Shadwell’s play The virtuoso depicted the fictional experimentalist Sir Gimcrack. Where Pepys succeeded in balancing experimental practice with everyday responsibilities, Gimcrack was alienated from everyday life because he focused on the artificial world of lice, mites and weeds.

The article shows how the way these three readers related to the books on microscopy was influenced by their opinions on the microscopic experience as either natural or artificial. Furthermore, it argues that one can discern an interaction between the readers’ gender identities and their microscopic observations. In Pepys and Shadwell/Gimcrack’s case how their gentlemanliness was formed in relation to their microscopic observations, in Cavendish’s case how her critique of these observations gave her a position as a woman who published in natural philosophy.

sted, utgiver, år, opplag, sider
Uppsala: Lärdomshistoriska samfundet , 2009. s. 91-116
Emneord [en]
Micrographia, Experimental Philosophy, Robert Hooke (1635-1703), Henry Power (1623–1668), experience, communicating science, English restoration, scientific text
HSV kategori
Forskningsprogram
Idé- och lärdomshistoria
Identifikatorer
URN: urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-113169OAI: oai:DiVA.org:uu-113169DiVA, id: diva2:289923
Tilgjengelig fra: 2010-01-25 Laget: 2010-01-25 Sist oppdatert: 2017-12-12bibliografisk kontrollert

Open Access i DiVA

Fulltekst mangler i DiVA

Personposter BETA

Orrje, Jacob

Søk i DiVA

Av forfatter/redaktør
Orrje, Jacob
Av organisasjonen
I samme tidsskrift
Lychnos

Søk utenfor DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

urn-nbn

Altmetric

urn-nbn
Totalt: 799 treff
RefereraExporteraLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Referera
Referensformat
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Annet format
Fler format
Språk
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Annet språk
Fler språk
Utmatningsformat
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf