Those who enjoyed listening to Sam Alberti’s excellent keynote address at the Connecting with Collections Symposium (posted on this blog last week) may be interested in another presentation from that day.
This is my paper on “King Arthur’s Table: Learning From a Replica Scientific Instrument“. I have added the slides I used to an audio recording from the day. I hope you enjoy watching it – please leave any feedback in the Comments section below. You can find the abstract below the video.
“King Arthur’s Table” is not a table, nor has it anything to do with King Arthur. It is a twentieth-century reconstruction of a fourteenth-century astronomical instrument: a planetary equatorium described in a manuscript attributed to Geoffrey Chaucer. Conceived by historian of science Derek Price as a huge, tangible realisation of Chaucerian astronomy for Cambridge’s then-newly-opened Whipple Museum of the History of Science, it was displayed, discarded, stored, catalogued with that rather whimsical name, and finally rediscovered.
This paper will use the biography of King Arthur’s Table as a route to understanding the early, inchoate years of both a museum and the discipline of history of science. Its construction in the Cavendish Laboratory, under the patronage of Sir Lawrence Bragg, and its first display at the Royal Society allow it to tell us much about the significant scientific institutions and figures of that period. Intended both as a replica instrument and as an homage to the life and work of a great historical figure, its own life story has reflected changing research priorities and curatorial attitudes, especially concerning reconstructions.
At the start of this project I was only hoping to find some documentation linked to the equatorium that Derek Price built – so I was amazed when I found the equatorium itself. It’s now on display in the Whipple Museum for the History of Science (open Monday-Friday, 12.30-4.30; admission free).
But I still haven’t found much of the documentation I was searching for in the first place. I imagined I’d be able to track down at least a few references to the equatorium in the archives… but I’ve had little luck. As always, of course, we researchers are dependent on what people thought was worth keeping. In my case, because both the Cavendish Laboratory and Derek de Solla Price made big moves (to west Cambridge and the USA, respectively) not long after the equatorium was made, very few papers are conserved from that period.
However, I have had a little luck in other archives, and with the help of Derek Price’s family I’ve been able to piece together a few more details about the early life of King Arthur’s Table.
As I explained in a previous post, it was made in the Cavendish Laboratory, which was run at the time by Sir Lawrence Bragg. Bragg had deliberately structured the Cavendish to create plenty of spare capacity in the workshops, so that experiments would never be delayed for want of a particular piece of equipment. This helps explain how it was that a History student was able to get a model of a medieval astronomical instrument made by technicians who were more used to working on cutting-edge apparatus for experiments in molecular biology or metal physics.
What I hadn’t realised was how quickly Price got the model made. He first examined the manuscript in December 1951 and within weeks, it seems, refocused his entire research to place this one document at the centre. As his diary shows, by March he was ready to make a model of the instrument described in the manuscript.
The model – King Arthur’s Table – was certainly complete by May, because that month Price showed it off at a “Conversazione” at the Royal Society in London. (In fact it’s likely that the opportunity to describe his research at the Royal Society was a significant spur to the model’s production.)
One thing I’d been wondering about this episode is how Price was able to move the model to the Royal Society. After all, it was stuck in storage for many years precisely because it was too big to fit in a car! As it turns out, Price had some help. In the private papers of Rupert Hall, Price’s supervisor and the first curator of the Whipple Museum, I came across a note detailing the travel arrangements for the Conversazione. As neither Price nor the Museum had the capacity to transport such an item, Hall arranged to borrow the Chemical Laboratory van for the day. The note instructs Hall to contact “a Mr Thompson” in the Department of Chemistry, in order to make the final arrangements.
In themselves, such diary entries and typewritten notes provide little information. But they are small pieces of a much larger puzzle; it is through such scattered evidence that we must attempt to construct a coherent narrative. I’ve realised how unlikely I am to have a “Eureka!” moment in the archives. Rather, one must be grateful for whatever small titbits on offer, and make the best possible use of them in building better historical understanding.
Coming soon: Next week I’ll be building another equatorium – using brass this time. Come back soon to read all about it!
The smaller model is the one I built (see my blog for the full story). We’re displaying both models as an example of research in the Museum, and the work of the Connecting with Collections project. The glass panel will soon be replaced by a larger one, to allow room for updates on the progress of my research.
This is the second week of the Cambridge Science Festival. Last Saturday the Whipple Museum had a special opening for Science Saturday, and I gave three short talks about my research, and about medieval astronomy more generally. The visitors seemed to enjoy getting to grips with the astrolabes!
Why not go and check out King Arthur’s Table? You can even come back here and leave a comment! The Museum is open Monday to Friday, 12.30-4.30 p.m, and it’s completely free. There are special tours and object handling sessions this afternoon, and on Friday afternoon – just drop in.
My project is about King Arthur’s Table. I described this in a previous post. As I’ve explained on my own blog, it stems from my PhD research into a 14th-century manuscript, The Equatorie of the Planetis.
Yesterday I was in London, looking in the archives of the Royal Institution for information about how and why King Arthur’s Table was built according to the instructions in the manuscript. I didn’t find any direct evidence, but I discovered plenty about its creator, Derek Price, and his relationship with Lawrence Bragg, the director of the Cavendish Laboratory where KAT was made.
I was struck by how many of my research projects have included a strong biographical element. Maybe it’s just the way my research interests push me, or perhaps there’s always a biographical aspect to every history. Either way, I do think personal stories add some human interest.
Price’s story is an intriguing one. I haven’t got to the bottom of it, but it seems that for him, coming to Cambridge was a new beginning. His background was far from prosperous: his father was a tailor and his mother a singer, and he studied for his first degree and doctorate at South West Essex Technical College (part of the University of London). After taking his doctorate in physics he moved to teach applied mathemetics at the then University of Malaya in Singapore. This was in 1947, the same year he got married. But in 1950 something changed. He decided to change subjects from mathematics and physics to the history of science, and began to make enquiries about studying or working at Cambridge. This was to lead to his second PhD, for which he researched the Equatorie manuscript he had discovered in the library at Peterhouse.
The archives show that several people in Cambridge were curious, even suspicious, about his reasons for leaving Malaya. There are hints that he did not fit easily into life in Cambridge. It’s tempting to suppose that this may have had something to do with his social or racial (Jewish) background, but there is no clear evidence on that point. Either way, it is fascinating to see how, when he decided to make a new start in his career, he was prepared to work incredibly hard to make it happen.
As I’ve also come to Cambridge a little later in life, it’s something I can identify with. And of course it’s been said that a biographer must be able to identify with their subject to some extent. Is this the beginning of a beautiful biographical relationship? We’ll see.
The (not very serious) working title for my project is King Arthur’s Table: From Cavendish to Whipple. As its starting point, it takes an object in the Whipple Museum nicknamed King Arthur’s Table. You can read about how I found this object on my blog; or just skip to the summary below.
SUMMARY: Six-foot model of an equatorium built for top historian of science Derek de Solla Price in 1950s. Long lost. Found but not identified and renamed “King Arthur’s Table” by witty cataloguer. Found in the Whipple stores by me, with help from the curators.
So what’s the research about?
King Arthur’s Table symbolizes a fascinating moment in the history of science and of Cambridge University. It was built in the Cavendish Laboratory – in the same building, at almost exactly the same time, that Crick and Watson were working on the structure of DNA. In the same year as that great breakthrough, 1953, Robert S. Whipple died. He had already made substantial donations to found a new museum and a new university department – History and Philosophy of Science – next door to the Cavendish.
Derek Price was one of the first people to work in the new Whipple Museum. He was friends with Lawrence Bragg, the youngest-ever Nobel laureate and director of the Cavendish. The “Table” was made for Price in the Cavendish workshops – a 20th-century replica of a 14th-century instrument that, despite not being “authentic”, was destined to hang in the new Museum of the History of Science.
Tracing this history, by studying contemporary documents as well as the instrument itself, I reckon I can learn a lot about the glory days of the Cavendish Laboratory, the foundation of the Whipple Museum, and History of Science as a new discipline and university department in the postwar years. There’s also lots to learn about the way museum collections are put together and curated; the way we view the past and its representation today.
Hopefully the “Table” will soon be back on display in the Whipple Museum after a gap of almost exactly 50 years, together with a computer model showing how it works. In the meantime, I’ll be blogging here and on my own blog as my research progresses. Check back soon for updates!