Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 August 2011
This article argues that the study of astronomical observing instruments, their transportation around the globe and the personal and professional networks created by such exchanges are useful conceptual tools in exploring the role of science in the nineteenth-century British Empire. The shipping of scientific instruments highlights the physical and material connections that bound the empire together. Large, heavy and fragile objects, such as transit circles, were difficult to transport and repair. As such, the logistical difficulties associated with their movement illustrate the limitations of colonial scientific enterprises and their reliance on European centres. The discussion also examines the impact of the circulation of such objects on observatories and astronomers working in southern Africa, India and St Helena by tracing the connections between these places and British scientific institutions, London-based instrument-makers, and staff at the Royal Observatory, Greenwich. It explores the ways in which astronomy generally, and the use of observing instruments in particular, relate to broader themes about the applications of science, the development of colonial identities, and the consolidation of empire in the first half of the nineteenth century. In considering these issues, the article illustrates the symbiotic relationship between science and empire in the period, demonstrating the overlap between political and strategic considerations and purely scientific endeavours. Almost paradoxically, as they trained their sights and their telescopes on the heavens, astronomers and observers helped to draw diverse regions of the earth beneath closer together. By tracing the movement of instruments and the arcs of patronage, cooperation and power that these trajectories inscribe, the role of science and scientific objects in forging global links and influencing the dynamics of the nineteenth-century British Empire is brought into greater focus.
1 Athenaeum, 5 April 1834, p. 256, quoted in Warner, Brian, Cape Landscapes: Sir John Herschel's Sketches, 1834–1838, Cape Town: University of Cape Town, 2006, pp. 18–19Google Scholar.
2 Thomas Maclear to John Herschel, 5 April 1834, in Warner, Brian and Warner, Nancy (eds.), Maclear and Herschel: Letters and Diaries at the Cape of Good Hope, Cape Town: A.A. Balkema, 1984, p. 42Google Scholar.
3 The National Maritime Museum holds an 18.7-inch primary mirror of speculum metal belonging to the twenty-foot telescope (AST0786). This is ‘No. 3’ of three mirrors taken to and brought back from the Cape by Sir John Herschel. The other two are at the Radcliffe Observatory in Oxford and the South African Astronomical Observatory.
4 Herschel, John F.W., Results of Astronomical Observations made during the Years 1834, 5, 6, 7, 8, at the Cape of Good Hope; Being the completion of a Telescopic Survey of the Whole Surface of the Visible Heavens, Commenced in 1825, London: Smith, Elder & Co., 1847, pp. vii–viiiGoogle Scholar. Over the course of four years, Herschel identified two thousand new ‘double stars’ and fifteen hundred ‘nebulae’ using the twenty-foot reflector telescope and a small refractor (‘equatorial refractor’) telescope.
5 For a broad overview of science, astronomy and observatories in the areas under discussion, see Evans, David S., Under Capricorn: A History of Southern Hemisphere Astronomy, Bristol: Adam Hilger, 1988Google Scholar; Kumar, Deepak, Science and the Raj, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995Google Scholar.
6 John Herschel to secretary of the East India Company, 4 August 1847, Oriental and India Office Collections (subsequently OIOC), British Library, London (subsequently BL), E/1/189/74.
7 For studies that adopt a similar approach, see Bourguet, Marie-Noëlle, Licoppe, Christian and Sibum, H. Otto (eds.), Instruments, Travel and Science: Itineraries of Precision from the Seventeenth to the Twentieth Century, London: Routledge, 2002CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Secord, James A., ‘Knowledge in transit’, Isis (2004) 95, pp. 654–672CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Simon Schaffer, ‘Instruments, surveys and maritime empire’, in David Cannadine (ed.), Empire, the Sea and Global History: Britain's Maritime World, c.1763–c.1840, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmilan, 2007, pp. 83–104.
8 As a term, ‘science’ has been the subject of much scholarly debate. Roberts, See Lissa, ‘Situating science in global history: local exchanges and networks of circulation’, Itinerario (2009) 23, pp. 19–30Google Scholar, 28 n. 3. Similarly, the notion of colonial ‘peripheries’ in relation to scientific endeavours has been called into question in much of the recent literature. See, for example, MacLeod, Roy, ‘Nature and empire: science and the colonial enterprise’, Osiris (2000) 15, pp. 1–13, 6CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
9 For an overview see Palladino, Paolo and Worboys, Michael, ‘Science and imperialism’, Isis (1993) 84, pp. 91–102Google Scholar.
10 MacLeod, op. cit. (8), p. 10.
11 For example, see Drayton, Richard, Nature's Government: Science, British Imperialism and the Improvement of the World, London: Yale University Press, 2000Google Scholar; MacKenzie, John M. (ed.), Imperialism and the Natural World, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1991Google Scholar; Headrick, Daniel, The Tools of Empire: Technology and European Imperialism in the Nineteenth Century, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981Google Scholar; Arnold, David, Science, Technology and Medicine in Colonial India, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Robert A. Stafford, ‘Scientific exploration and empire’, in Andrew Porter (ed.), The Oxford History of the British Empire, vol. 3: The Nineteenth Century, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999, pp. 294–319.
14 Specifically in relation to southern Africa, see Dubow, Saul, A Commonwealth of Knowledge: Science, Sensibility and White South Africa, 1820–2000, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006Google Scholar; idem (ed.), Science and Society in Southern Africa, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2000; Elizabeth Green Musselman, ‘“Swords into ploughshares”: Herschel's, Johnprogressive view of astronomical and imperial governance’, BJHS (1998) 31, pp. 419–435Google Scholar.
15 MacLeod, op. cit. (8), p. 11.
16 See Dunn, Richard, The Telescope: A Short History, London: National Maritime Museum, 2009Google Scholar.
17 Smyth, William H., A Cycle of Celestial Objects for the Use of Naval, Military and Private Astronomers, London: Parker, 1844, p. 121Google Scholar.
18 Fearon Fallows [to Francis Baily], 15 June 1822, Royal Greenwich Observatory Archives, Papers of the Cape Observatory (subsequently RGO), Cambridge University Library (subsequently CUL), RGO/15/29, f. 1.
19 Astronomical research in southern Africa was already well established before Britain acquired the Cape of Good Hope during the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars. In the seventeenth century, Guy de Tachard arrived at the Cape as part of a French Jesuit mission on its way to China. He was charged with investigating the satellites of Jupiter but during his sojourn he also discovered that the brightest star in the Southern Cross is, in fact, a double star. The first mission specifically intended to take advantage of the geographical position of the Cape was that of Nicolas de la Caille, who was sent by the French Academy of Sciences in 1751 and set up his astronomical equipment in the backyard of a lodging house in Cape Town. Despite the unusual location, within a year he had managed to plot the positions of ten thousand stars and to identify fourteen new constellations. For a discussion of other early scientific endeavours at the Cape of Good Hope under the aegis of the Dutch East India Company see Pooley, Simon, ‘Jan van Riebeeck as pioneering explorer and conservator of natural resources at the Cape of Good Hope (1652–62)’, Environment and History (2009) 15, pp. 3–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On astronomy in India before European involvement see Baber, Zaheer, The Science of Empire: Scientific Knowledge, Civilization, and Colonial Rule in India, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1996Google Scholar.
20 For discussion of the problematic distinction set up by the use of these terms in this context see Palladino and Worboys, op. cit. (9), pp. 99–100.
23 One estimate suggests that, in course of the nineteenth century, the number of observatories rose from three dozen to more than two hundred. See David Aubin, Charlotte Bigg and H. Otto Sibum, ‘Introduction: observatory techniques in nineteenth-century science and society’, in Aubin, Bigg and Sibum (eds.), The Heavens on Earth: Observatories and Astronomy in Nineteenth-Century Science and Culture, Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2010, pp. 1–32, 2.
24 Buist, George, Annals of India for the Year 1848, Bombay: James Chesson, 1849, p. xliGoogle Scholar.
25 James Paton to James Prinsep, 8 September 1831, OIOC, BL, F/502/12026, ff. 24–25. For more information on James Prinsep, and his role in facilitating European science in India, see Kejariwal, O.P., The Asiatic Society of Bengal and the Discovery of India's Past, 1784–1838, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1999, pp. 162–164Google Scholar.
26 Extract from public letter to Bombay, 13 September 1826, OIOC, BL, F/4/1131/30225, ff. 9–10.
28 John Barrow to Fearon Fallows, 5 July 1826, RGO, CUL, RGO/15/27, f. 109.
29 ‘List of Articles transmitted by Mr Dolland [sic]’, 21 September 1826, RGO, CUL, RGO/15/27, f. 62.
30 ‘List of Articles received on board the Susanna, of Thomas Jones Optician to the Admiralty, for HM's Observatory at the Cape of Good Hope’, 2 August 1826, RGO, CUL, RGO/15/27, ff. 70–71; Warner, op. cit. (27), p. 150.
31 Dubow, A Commonwealth of Knowledge, op. cit. (14), p. 13 and passim; see also Laidlaw, Zoë, Colonial Connections, 1815–45: Patronage, the Information Revolution and Colonial Government, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2005, pp. 31–35Google Scholar.
33 George Biddell Airy to Thomas Maclear, 10 July 1837, RGO, CUL, RGO/15/28, f. 555.
34 Francis Blackwood to Thomas Maclear, 3 July 1851, RGO, CUL, RGO/15/61, f. 2.
35 Thomas Maclear to Francis Baily, 20 February 1840, RGO, CUL, RGO/15/29, f. 21.
36 For more on John Lee see Anastasia Filippoupoliti, ‘Spatializing the private collection: John Fiott Lee and Hartwell House’, in John Potvin and Alla Myzelev (eds.), Material Cultures, 1740–1920: The Meanings and Pleasures of Collecting, Aldershot: Ashgate, 2009, pp. 53–69.
37 Thomas Maclear to John Lee, 10 April 1840, Lee family of Hartwell papers, Centre for Buckinghamshire Studies, Aylesbury (subsequently CBS), D–LE/H/8/27.
38 Thomas Maclear to George Biddell Airy, 7 June 1840, RGO, CUL, RGO/15/28, f. 224.
39 Quoted in Warner, op. cit. (27), p. 42.
40 Thomas Maclear to George Biddell Airy, 6 May 1839, RGO, CUL, RGO/15/28, f. 149.
41 Thomas Maclear [to George Biddell Airy], 30 September 1839, RGO, CUL, RGO/15/28, f. 151.
42 Weekly Register, 24 December 1849, RGO, CUL, RGO/15/2, f. 80. In this instance, Maclear relied on help from the Royal Navy to transport the instrument back to Britain. Maclear specifically refers to this as ‘Bradley's Sector’. Some sources suggest that Bradley's zenith sector returned to Greenwich in 1839. See Howse, Derek, Greenwich Observatory: The Buildings and Instruments, London: Taylor & Francis, 1975, p. 64Google Scholar.
43 Weekly Register, 30 January 1854, RGO, CUL, RGO/15/3, f. 4.
44 Palladino and Worboys, op. cit. (9), p. 98.
45 Quoted in Warner, op. cit. (27), p. 145.
46 Thomas Maclear to George Biddell Airy, 4 July 1839, RGO, CUL, RGO15/28, f. 218.
47 Extract from public letter from Bombay, 19 July 1815, OIOC, BL, F/4/502/12026, f. 11.
48 John Curnin to the Honourable the Governor in Council, 2 July 1828, OIOC, BL, F/1032/28377, ff. 115–116. At this time, the rate of exchange was roughly one rupee to two British shillings, so the telescope was selling for about £350.
49 John Curnin to Charles Norris, 12 October 1827, OIOC, BL, F/4/981/27686, ff. 81–83.
50 Extract from public letter from Bombay, 5 January 1828, OIOC, BL, F/4/981/27686, f. 2. A note on the file, dated June 1828, confirms that this had been undertaken.
51 Buist, op. cit. (24), p. xli.
52 Bombay Times, 12 August 1848, quoted in Buist, op. cit. (24), p. xxiii.
53 Fearon Fallows [to Francis Baily], 15 June 1822, RGO, CUL, RGO/15/29, ff. 1–2.
54 Thomas Young to John Wilson Croker, 4 July 1822, RGO, CUL, RGO/15/27, ff. 49–50.
55 Fearon Fallows to Francis Baily, 9 December 1830, RGO, CUL, RGO/15/29, ff. 7–8.
56 Robert Molyneux to William Ronald , RGO, CUL, RGO15/27, f. 69.
57 Thomas Maclear to George Biddell Airy, 4 July 1839, RGO, CUL, RGO15/28, f. 218.
58 This was the 12½-foot zenith sector, made by George Graham, with which James Bradley discovered the aberration of light. It is now in the collection of the National Maritime Museum (AST0992). For further information about the object see Howse, op. cit. (42), pp. 60–64.
59 George Biddell Airy to Francis Beaufort, 31 March 1837, RGO, CUL, RGO/15/28, f. 544, underlining in original.
60 Francis Beaufort to George Biddell Airy, 3 April 1837, RGO, CUL, RGO/15/28, f. 545.
61 Weekly Register [October 1854], RGO, CUL, RGO/15/3, ff. 66–67.
62 Thomas Maclear [to colonial secretary], 22 January 1855, RGO, CUL, RGO/15/3, f. 87.
64 See Aubin, Bigg and Sibum, op. cit. (23), pp. 4–8.
65 Fearon Fallows [to Francis Baily], 15 June 1822, RGO, CUL, RGO/15/29, f. 1.
66 ‘Parliamentary intelligence’, The Times, 9 April 1850.
67 Weekly Register, 22 July 1850, RGO, CUL, RGO/15/2, f. 138.
68 Buist, op. cit. (24), p. xliv.
70 Extract from public letter from St Helena, 8 December 1825, OIOC, BL, F/4/866/22837.
71 Johnson, Manuel J., A Catalogue of 606 Principal Fixed Stars in the Southern Hemisphere, London: Honourable East India Company, 1835, p. 1Google Scholar.
72 Fearon Fallows to Alexander Walker, 27 February 1826, OIOC, BL, F/4/866/22837.
73 Quoted in Ann Savours and Anita McConnell, ‘Introduction: journal kept by Midshipman Henry Kay’, in Herbert K. Beals et al. (eds.), Four Travel Journals: The Americas, Antarctica and Africa, 1775–1874, London: The Hakluyt Society, 2007, p. 265.
74 Warner, op. cit. (27), p. 72.
76 Francis Skead (Admiralty surveyor) to Captain John Washington RN, 31 January 1862, RGO, CUL, RGO/15/60, ff. 19, 21–22. For further information on the role of science in this expedition see Dritsas, Laurence, Zambesi: David Livingstone and Expeditionary Science in Africa, London: I.B. Tauris, 2010Google Scholar.
77 Quoted in Simon Schaffer, ‘The Leviathan of Parsonstown: literary technology and scientific representation’, in Timothy Lenoir (ed.), Inscribing Science: Scientific Texts and the Materiality of Communication, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998, pp. 182–222, 203.
79 Lastovica, op. cit. (78), pp. 67–68; Warner, op. cit. (32), pp. 93–94.
80 Quoted in Arnold, op. cit. (11), pp. 36–37.
81 Quoted in Kochlar, op. cit. (22), p. 79.
82 Maclear, Thomas, Memoir on the Geography and Topography of the Cape of Good Hope, Cape Town: Miscellaneous Official Publications, 1857, p. 1Google Scholar.
83 Thomas Maclear to George Cathcart, 18 July 1853, RGO, CUL, RGO/15/2, ff. 378–379.
84 A.J. Cloete to Thomas Maclear, 29 July 1853, RGO, CUL, RGO/15/2, f. 392.
85 Hurly, R.F., ‘Thomas Maclear, geodetic surveyor’, Transactions of the Royal Society of South Africa (1995), 50, pp. 61–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Maclear took a base measured over a period of 158 days, from 30 October 1840 to 5 April 1841. This measured 42,818.75 feet (13,051.14m) in length and, measuring with bars 9 feet long, represents 4,750 individual measurements.
86 Fearon Fallows [to Francis Baily], 15 June 1822, RGO, CUL, RGO/15/29, f. 1.
88 Extract from public letter from Bombay, 20 February 1808, OIOC, BL, F/4/502/12026, f. 4.
89 Representation of O. Woodhouse, vice-president of the Bombay Literary Society [March 1815], OIOC, BL, F/4/502/12026, f. 18.
90 Bombay public letter, 27 August 1817, OIOC, BL, E/4/1036, draft 188/1816–17, pp. 146–147.
91 Extract from public letter from Bombay, 19 July 1815, OIOC, BL, F/4/502/12026, ff. 11, 25.
92 Representation of O. Woodhouse [March 1815], OIOC, BL, F/4/502/12026, f. 23.
93 Buist, op. cit. (24), p. xliv.
94 James Dowling Herbert to George Swinton, 5 December 1831, OIOC, BL, F/4/1400/55470, f. 29.
95 James Paton to James Prinsep, 8 September 1831, OIOC, BL, F/502/12026, ff. 24–25.
96 Extract of public letter from St Helena, 19 July 1826, OIOC, BL, F/4/866/22837, paragraph 81.
97 Quoted in Warner, op. cit. (27), p. 8.
98 John Lee to Thomas Maclear, 30 January 1838, CBS, D–LE/H/8/21; ‘Maclear's Account of the Early History of the Cape Observatory’, 1840, RGO, CUL, RGO/15/18, f. 1.
99 For a more detailed discussion of this see McAleer, John, Representing Africa: Landscape, Exploration and Empire in Southern Africa, 1780–1870, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2010, pp. 33–58Google Scholar.
100 Athenaeum, 28 June 1838, p. 426, quoted in Ruskin, Steven, John Herschel's Cape Voyage: Private Science, Public Imagination and the Ambitions of Empire, Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004, pp. 64–65Google Scholar.
101 Quoted in Steven, Ruskin, ‘Private science and the imperial imagination: John Herschel's Cape voyage’, Endeavour (2001), 25, pp. 23–27, 24, 25Google Scholar.
103 Agnes M. Clerke, ‘A Southern Observatory ’, Herschel collection, National Maritime Museum (subsequently NMM), HRS/207/3, f. 116.
104 NMM, HRS/207/3, f. 119.
105 In relation to southern Africa, for example, see Keegan, Timothy J., Colonial South Africa and the Origins of the Racial Order, London: Leicester University Press, 1996Google Scholar; Ross, Robert, Status and Respectability in the Cape Colony, 1750–1870: ‘A Tragedy of Manners’, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999CrossRefGoogle Scholar; McKenzie, Kirsten, Scandal in the Colonies: Sydney and Cape Town, 1820–1850, Carlton: Melbourne University Press, 2004Google Scholar.
106 See Sturgis, James, ‘Anglicization at the Cape of Good Hope in the early nineteenth century’, Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History (1982) 11, pp. 5–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bickford-Smith, Vivian, ‘Revisiting Anglicisation in the nineteenth-century Cape Colony’, Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History (2003) 31, pp. 82–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dubow, Saul, ‘How British was the British world? The case of South Africa’, Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History (2009) 37, pp. 1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
107 See MacKenzie, John M., Museums and Empire: Natural History, Human Cultures and Colonial Identities, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2009Google Scholar.
108 Representation of O. Woodhouse [March 1815], OIOC, BL, IOR/F/4/502/12026, f. 25.
109 Kejariwal, op. cit. (25), pp. 163–164.
110 Saul Dubow, ‘Introduction’, in idem, Science and Society in Southern Africa, op. cit. (14), p. 3.
111 Quoted in Warner, op. cit. (32), p. 94.
112 Dunn, op. cit. (16), p. 10.
113 Thomas Maclear [to George Biddell Airy], 22 April 1839, RGO, CUL, RGO/15/28, f. 603.
114 Herschel, op. cit. (4), p. 452.
115 Sir John Herschel, quoted in Ruskin, op. cit. (101), p. 25.