uu.seUppsala University Publications
Change search
ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Reading art, reading nature: How microscopic literature formed seventeenth-century readers
Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Arts, Department of History of Science and Ideas, History of Science.
2009 (English)In: Lychnos, ISSN 0076-1648, 91-116 p.Article in journal (Refereed) 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.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Uppsala: Lärdomshistoriska samfundet , 2009. 91-116 p.
Keyword [en]
Micrographia, Experimental Philosophy, Robert Hooke (1635-1703), Henry Power (1623–1668), experience, communicating science, English restoration, scientific text
National Category
History History of Ideas
Research subject
History of Sciences and Ideas
URN: urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-113169OAI: oai:DiVA.org:uu-113169DiVA: diva2:289923
Available from: 2010-01-25 Created: 2010-01-25 Last updated: 2010-12-07Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Orrje, Jacob
By organisation
History of Science
In the same journal
HistoryHistory of Ideas

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

Total: 264 hits
ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link