| dc.description |
This paper examines Robert Willisʼs science of ‘mechanism’, its relation to the later mechanics textbooks of William Whewell, and its promotion as the key to appreciating, understanding and contriving machinery in Victorian Britain. Responsive, first, to the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge and later to student audiences at Cambridge, Willis constructed a science of ‘mechanism’ in both words in print and works in practice. With Whewellʼs sanction in the Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences (1840), Willisʼs Principles of Mechanism (1841) elaborated a science of kinematics expressing geometry in motion without considerations of force. With Willisʼs approval, Whewellʼs Mechanics of Engineering (1841) began to complete and systematize a projected science of machinery, now separated from previous accounts of mechanics. Their joint project put ‘mechanism’ and the ‘mechanics of engineering’ into print in Britain as adjuncts to a liberal education in Cambridge; further, with the rapid expansion of academic provision for practical engineers from 1838 to 1841, these two Fellows offered their progeny as essential fodder further afield. Reactions to this two-pronged attack varied. But it was, perhaps, Willisʼs work with elaborate demonstration lectures, using special apparatus built by London mechanists and marketed by educational entrepreneurs, that effectively disseminated the new science. |
| Название |
‘The progeny of these two “Fellows”’: Robert Willis, William Whewell and the sciences of mechanism, mechanics and machinery in early Victorian BritainI presented some of these ideas at the History of Science Research Workshop, University of Kent and at two conferences: ‘Teaching and Learning in Nineteenth-Century Cambridge’ at Trinity College, Cambridge, and ‘Bodies/Machines’ at the Queenʼs University, Belfast. I thank the conference organizers, Jonathan Smith and Iwan Morus respectively, and participants, in particular Aileen Fyfe, Graeme Gooday and Simon Schaffer. At Kent, Richard Eales kindly shared his knowledge of Robert Willis and Grayson Ditchfield discussed questions in religious history. Jon Agar, Yakup Bektas, Rainer Broemer, John Brooke, Simon Chaplin, John Clark, Maurice Crosland, Andrew Cunningham, David Ditchburn, James Massender, John Pickstone, Ann Scott, Crosbie Smith, Claire Taylor and Jane Wess offered advice, criticism and additional sources. Two anonymous referees made invaluable suggestions on structure and focus. I thank the archivists and librarians of the University of Aberdeen, Cambridge University Library, Trinity College, Cambridge, University College London, the University of St Andrews, the Science Museum Library and the Institution of Civil Engineers. The completion of this paper was made possible by the generous support of the Royal Society of London (Small Research Grants) and the Royal Society of London and the British Academy jointly (Postdoctoral Research Fellowship in the History of Science).For permission to quote from manuscripts I am grateful to University College London (Library Services) (SDUK Papers), the British Library (Babbage Papers), the Master and Fellows of Trinity College, Cambridge (Whewell Papers), the Syndics of Cambridge University Library (Stokes Papers) and the Particle Physics & Astronomy Research Council (Royal Greenwich Observatory Collection). |
