Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T16:11:17.628Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Managing the observatory: discipline, order and disorder at Greenwich, 1835–1933

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 March 2021

Scott Alan Johnston
Scott Alan Johnston*
Affiliation:
Independent scholar
*
*Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article presents a case study of life and work at the Royal Observatory at Greenwich (1835–1933) which reveals tensions between the lived reality of the observatory as a social space, and the attempts to create order, maintain discipline and project an image of authority in order to ensure the observatory's long-term stability. Domestic, social and scientific activities all intermingled within the observatory walls in ways which were occasionally disorderly. But life at Greenwich was carefully managed to stave off such disorder and to maintain an appearance of respectability which was essential to the observatory's reputation and output. The article focuses on three areas of management: (1) the observatory's outer boundaries, demonstrating how Greenwich navigated both human and environmental intrusions from the wider world; (2) the house, examining how Greenwich's domestic spaces provided stability, while also complicating observatory life via the management of domestic servants; and (3) the scientific spaces, with an emphasis on the work and play of the observatory's boy computers. Together, these three parts demonstrate that the stability of the observatory was insecure, despite being perpetuated via powerful physical and social boundaries. It had to be continually maintained, and was regularly challenged by Greenwich's occupants and neighbours.

Type
Research Article
Information
The British Journal for the History of Science , Volume 54 , Issue 2 , June 2021 , pp. 155 - 175
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of British Society for the History of Science

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Of course, for some types of scientific spaces, like museums and botanical gardens, public access was part of their raison d’être. For examples of how these institutions established relationships with the public in contrast to the observatory discussed in this article see Finnegan, Diarmid, ‘The spatial turn: geographical approaches in the history of science’, Journal of the History of Biology (2008) 41, pp. 369–88CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed, 375–6; Lightman, Bernard, ‘Refashioning the spaces of London science: elite epistemes in the nineteenth century’, in Withers, Charles and Livingston, David (eds.), Geographies of Nineteenth-Century Science, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2001, pp. 25–50Google Scholar, 31, 44; MacDonald, Lee, Kew Observatory and the Evolution of Victorian Science, 1840–1910, Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2018CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Forgan, Sophie, ‘The architecture of display: museums, universities, and objects in nineteenth-century Britain’, History of Science (1994) 32, pp. 139–62CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

2 Pionke, Albert, The Ritual Culture of Victorian Professionals: Competing for Ceremonial Status, 1838–1877, London: Routledge, 2013Google Scholar.

3 Gooday, Graeme, ‘Placing or replacing the laboratory in the history of science’, Isis (2008) 99, pp. 783–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 786.

4 Greenwich was similarly subject to supervision by a Board of Visitors. David Alan Grier, When Computers Were Human, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005, p. 53.

5 Gooday, op. cit. (3), p. 795.

6 Several other authors have worked with similar assumptions. For example, see Finnegan, op. cit. (1), p. 384. Finnegan suggests that in order to deal with social norms, ‘science depends on the manufacture and management of different spaces – real or imagined – to accomplish its objectives and establish its credentials’. Also relevant is Withers and Livingstone, op. cit. (1), p. 8. Withers and Livingstone suggest that scientific spaces struggle to enable or constrain ‘activities that are carried out within their confines’ in order to manage their reputations. For further examinations of the role of observatories in nineteenth-century society see David Aubin, Charlotte Bigg and Otto Sibum (eds.), The Heavens on Earth: Observatories and Astronomy in Nineteenth-Century Science and Culture, Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2010.

7 Donald Opitz, Staffan Bergwik and Brigitte van Tiggelen (eds.), Domesticity in the Making of Modern Science, Houndmills: Palgrave MacMillan, 2016, p. 2.

8 Opitz, Bergwik and van Tiggelen, op. cit. (7), p. 4.

9 On discipline, order and supervision at the observatory, and the process of deskilling the work for computers, see Smith, Robert, ‘A national observatory transformed: Greenwich in the nineteenth century’, Journal for the History of Astronomy (1991) 22, p. 5–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Schaffer, Simon, ‘Astronomers mark time: discipline and the personal equation’, Science in Context (1988) 2, pp. 115–45Google Scholar.

10 David Aubin, ‘On the epistemic and social foundations of mathematics as tool and instrument in observatories, 1793–1846’, in Johannes Lenhard and Martin Carrier (eds.), Mathematics as a Tool: Tracing New Roles of Mathematics in the Sciences, Cham: Springer International, 2017, pp. 177–96; Allan Chapman, ‘Sir George Airy (1801–1892) and the concept of international standards in science, timekeeping, and navigation’, Vistas in Astronomy (1985) 28, pp. 321–8; see also Mary Croarken, Early Scientific Computing in Britain, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990; and Grier, op. cit. (4).

11 Shapin, Steven, ‘Placing the view from nowhere: historical and sociological problems in the location of science’, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers (1998) 23, pp. 5–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 6.

12 Shapin, op. cit. (11), pp. 7–8.

13 Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar, Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1987, pp. 187–208.

14 For an overview of Greenwich in this period see Meadows, A.J., Greenwich Observatory: Recent History (1836–1975), London: Taylor and Francis, 1975Google Scholar.

15 George Airy to Superintendent of Parks, 4 May 1878, Royal Greenwich Observatory Archives, Cambridge University Library, Cambridge (subsequently RGO), 7/58.

16 Superintendent of Park to George Airy, 9 May 1878, RGO 7/58.

17 First Commissioner of Her Majesty's Works etc. to the Astronomer Royal, August 1896, RGO 7/58.

18 For more on the transit of Venus preparations see Jessica Ratcliff, The Transit of Venus Enterprise in Victorian Britain, New York: Routledge, 2016, pp. 57–88.

19 W.M. Mitchell to Astronomer Royal, 21 May 1907, RGO 7/58.

20 Testing the Ground Wires in Greenwich park, December 1879–January 1890, RGO 7/58.

21 Edward Gillin, ‘Tremoring transits: railways, the Royal Observatory and the capitalist challenge to Victorian astronomical science’, BJHS (2020) 53, pp. 17–23.

22 Graham Dolan, ‘Deteriorating conditions at Greenwich and the selection of a new location for the Observatory’, The Royal Observatory Greenwich, at www.royalobservatorygreenwich.org/articles.php?article=994, accessed 10 September 2020.

23 Maria Lane, Geographies of Mars: Seeing and Knowing the Red Planet, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2010, p. 95.

24 See also Simon Schaffer, ‘Physics laboratories and the Victorian country house’, in Crosbie Smith and Jon Agar (eds.), Making Space for Science: Territorial Themes in the Shaping of Knowledge, London: Macmillan Press, 1998, pp. 149–80, 149.

25 Lee Macdonald, ‘Proposals to move the Royal Observatory, Greenwich, 1836–1944’, Journal for the History of Astronomy (2020) 51, pp. 172–304, 295–6.

26 Greenwich was used by much of the world's shipping already, but in 1884 an international conference recommended that it be made the international prime meridian. It took several decades before this recommendation was adopted worldwide. See Scott Johnston, ‘The construction of modern timekeeping in the Anglo-American world’, PhD dissertation, McMaster University, 2018.

27 Various documents related to the 1894 bombing attempt can be found in ‘The Explosion in Greenwich Park on 1894 February 15’, RGO 7/58.

28 Astronomer Royal to Secretary of the Admiralty, 24 February 1913, RGO 7/58; R.R. Scott to Frank Dyson, 4 December 1915, RGO 7/58.

29 Alphonse Esquiros, English Seamen and Divers, London: Chapman and Hall, 1868, pp. 5–6.

30 On the Royal Observatory as a tourist attraction see Rebekah Higgitt and Graham Dolan, ‘Greenwich time and “the line”’, Endeavour (2010) 34, pp. 37–40; Graham Dolan, ‘The Shepard Gate Clock’, The Royal Observatory Greenwich, at www.royalobservatorygreenwich.org/articles.php?article=1085, accessed 12 September 2020.

31 ‘A student of the stars: half an hour with Miss Alice Everett, M.A.’, The Sketch, 22 November 1893, p. 192.

32 Mr Davis to William Christie, 15 August 1888, RGO 7/58.

33 Mr Turner to Mr Davis, 20 August 1888, RGO 7/58.

34 J. Carter to Astronomer Royal, 29 July 1910, RGO 7/58; Mr Lifton to Astronomer Royal, 29 July 1910, RGO 7/58; J. Carter to the Chief Assistant, 8 August 1910, RGO 7/58; Astronomer Royal to Superintendent of Parks, 8 August 1910, RGO 7/58.

35 See, for example, Iwan Rhys Morus, ‘“The nervous system of Britain”: space, time and the electric telegraph in the Victorian age’, BJHS (2000) 33, pp. 455–75.

36 Gooday, op. cit. (3), pp. 790–1.

37 Simon Werrett, Thrifty Science: Making the Most of Materials in the History of Experiment, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2019, p. 5.

38 Rob Iliffe and Frances Willmoth, ‘Astronomy and the domestic sphere: Margaret Flamsteed and Caroline Herschel as assistant-astronomers’, in Lynett Hunter and Sarah Hutton (eds.), Women, Science and Medicine 1500–1700, Stroud: Sutton Publishing, 1997, pp. 235–65, 248.

39 See Amy Miller, ‘The Maskelynes at home’, in Rebekah Higgitt (ed.), Maskelyne: Astronomer Royal, London: Robert Hale, 2015, pp. 277–99; Iliffe and Willmoth, op. cit. (38), p. 261.

40 Werrett, op. cit. (37), pp. 167–8.

41 Schaffer, op. cit. (24), p. 150.

42 Schaffer, op. cit. (24), p. 150. On the other hand, sometimes the knowledge products of country houses required much effort to be ‘authoritative’. See Soraya de Chadarevian, ‘Laboratory science versus country-house experiments: the controversy between Julius Sachs and Charles Darwin’, BJHS (1996) 29, pp. 17–41.

43 Macdonald, op. cit. (25), pp. 297–8.

44 Maria Mitchell, Life, Letters, and Journals, Boston, MA: Lee and Shepard, 1896, p. 99.

45 Graham Dolan, ‘Flamsteed House’, The Royal Observatory Greenwich, at www.royalobservatorygreenwich.org/articles.php?article=916, accessed 19 December 2020.

46 Margaret Wilson, Ninth Astronomer Royal: The Life of Frank Watson Dyson, Cambridge: W. Heffer & Sons, 1951, p. 153.

47 Wilson, op. cit. (46), p. 164.

48 Mary Croarken, ‘Astronomical labourers: Maskelyne's assistants at the royal observatory, Greenwich, 1765–1811’, Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London (2003) 57, pp. 285–98, 288–9.

49 Wilson, op. cit. (46), p. 158.

50 For more discussion of the presence of labourers at Greenwich under Airy see Daniel Belteki, ‘Overseeing the production of space and time: a history of the Airy transit circle’, PhD dissertation, University of Kent, 2019.

51 Mr Jordan to George Airy, 3 December 1877, RGO 7/58.

52 Memo concerning maids, 3 December 1877, RGO 7/58.

53 Examples of such letters to schools seeking applications, and requests for information about the exams, can be found in RGO 7/133, 134, 135.

54 Christabel Airy to William Christie, 29 December 1895, RGO 7/134. In this instance, by the time Christie had an availability, the son of the orphanage master had found work elsewhere.

55 Kevin Donnelly, ‘On the boredom of science: positional astronomy in the nineteenth century’, BJHS (2014) 47, pp. 479–503, 489–90.

56 Graham Dolan, ‘The post of computer’, The Royal Observatory Greenwich, at www.royalobservatorygreenwich.org/articles.php?article=1000, accessed 19 December 2020.

57 Regulations for Supernumerary Computers, November 1888, RGO 7/134.

58 Dolan, op. cit. (56).

59 William Christie, 29 January 1883, RGO 7/133.

60 For more on Greenwich computers see Croarken, op. cit. (10); Grier, op. cit. (4); Meadows, op. cit. (14); Aubin, op. cit. (10), pp. 177–96.

61 William Christie regarding John Power, 19 February 1890, RGO 7/138. See also ‘Mr. John Power’, Nature (21 April 1934) 133, p. 602.

62 Regulations for Supernumerary Computers, November 1888, RGO 7/134.

63 C.M. to William Christie, 2 July 1890, RGO 7/139. The author has anonymized the youths’ names throughout.

64 George Airy to William Christie, 3 May 1881, RGO 7/133.

65 Mary Brück, ‘Lady computers at Greenwich in the early 1890s’, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society (1995) 36, pp. 83–95, 85.

66 Regulations for Supernumerary Computers, November 1888, RGO 7/134. Permanent employees were better off. Established computers made between £80 and £300 yearly. Assistants made between £180 and £500 per year, while the Astronomer Royal received over £1,000 per year. For an excellent compilation of pay at the observatory see Graham Dolan, ‘Pay 1871–1945’, The Royal Observatory Greenwich, at www.royalobservatorygreenwich.org/articles.php?article=942, accessed 12 September 2020.

67 Smith, op. cit. (9), p. 14; Chapman, op. cit. (10).

68 Esquiros, op. cit. (29), p. 19.

69 Smith, op. cit. (9), p. 14; Chapman, op. cit. (10), p. 332.

70 Smith, op. cit. (9), p. 14.

71 Esquiros, op. cit. (29), p. 20.

72 Schaffer, op. cit. (9), pp. 118–19.

73 Aubin, op. cit. (10), p. 187.

74 Aubin, op. cit. (10), p. 185.

75 William Christie regarding John Power, 19 February 1890, RGO 7/138.

76 Archival records for the lady computers can be found in RGO7/138, 140. See also Mullen, Karen, ‘Temporary measures: women computers at the Royal Observatory, Greenwich, 1890–1895’, Journal for the History of Astronomy (2020) 51, pp. 88–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kidwell, Peggy, ‘Women astronomers in Britain, 1780–1930’, Isis (1984) 75, pp. 534–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Marilyn Bailey Ogilvie, ‘Obligatory amateurs: Annie Maunder (1868–1947) and British women astronomers at the dawn of professional astronomy’, BJHS (2000) 33, pp. 67–84; Mary Brück, Women in Early British and Irish Astronomy, Cham: Springer, 2009; Brück, ‘Alice Everett and Annie Russell Maunder: torch bearing women astronomers’, Irish Astronomical Journal (1994) 21, pp. 280–91; Brück, op. cit. (65).

77 Simon Schaffer, ‘Late Victorian metrology and its instrumentation: a manufactory of Ohms’, Proceedings of SPIE, 1992, pp. 23–56, 23.

78 Higgitt, Rebekah, ‘A British national observatory: the building of the new physical observatory at Greenwich, 1889–1898’, BJHS (2014) 47, pp. 609–35CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed, 611.

79 George Airy to William Ellis, 1 March 1881, RGO 7/133.

80 William Ellis to George Airy, 1 March 1881, RGO 7/133.

81 George Airy to William Ellis, 3 March 1881, RGO 7/133.

82 Boy Computers to George Airy, 29 April 1881, RGO 7/133.

83 George Airy to Boy Computers, 12 May 1881, RGO 7/133.

84 George Airy to Boy Computers, 12 May 1881, RGO 7/133.

85 ‘Number of temporary and established computers at the Royal Observatory’, RGO 7/139.

86 H.T. to William Christie, 14 November 1895, RGO 7/134; Frank Dyson to H.T., 15 December 1895, RGO 7/134.

87 Astronomer Royal to the Secretary of the Admiralty, 6 July 1901, RGO 7/132.

88 Mr Bryant to William Christie, 7 September 1908, RGO 7/139.

89 Schaffer, Simon, ‘Easily cracked: scientific instruments in states of disrepair’, Isis (2011) 102, pp. 709–10CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

90 William Christie memo regarding broken lamp, 13 November 1909, RGO 7/139.

91 William Christie memo, 2 December 1882, RGO 7/133.

92 Higgitt, op. cit. (78), p. 621.

93 Supernumerary Computers to Frank Dyson, 14 October 1910, RGO 7/132.

94 Frank Dyson to Supernumerary Computers, 31 October 1910, RGO 7/132.

95 Frank Dyson to Supernumerary Computers, 31 October 1910, RGO 7/132.

96 ‘The Greenwich Observatory: a plea for the supernumerary computers’, John Bull, 13 May 1911, RGO 7/139.

97 Frank Dyson to Llewellyn, 21 November 1933, RGO 7/139; Dolan, op. cit. (56).

98 Office of Works to William Christie, 27 March 1883, RGO 7/58; Mr Weatherfield? [illeg.] to William Christie, 23 May 1886, 70773, RGO 7/58.

99 The hockey club had been around since 1893. See Graham Dolan, ‘The Royal Observatory Hockey Club (ROHC)’, The Royal Observatory Greenwich, at www.royalobservatorygreenwich.org/articles.php?article=1198, accessed 12 September 2020.

100 William Christie to the Secretary of the Office of Works, 11 May 1905, RGO 7/58.

101 Andrew Warwick, Masters of Theory: Cambridge and the Rise of Mathematical Physics, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2003, pp. 179, 213.

102 J.T. to Astronomer Royal, 23 February 1880 [the date given in the letter is a typo; this incident occurred in 1881]. RGO 7/139.

103 J.T. to Astronomer Royal, 23 February 1880 [the date given in the letter is a typo; this incident occurred in 1881]. RGO 7/139.

104 George Airy to J.T., 24 February 1881, RGO 7/139.

105 H.P to Astronomer Royal, 1 April 1881, RGO 7/139.

106 H.P. to Astronomer Royal, 1 April 1881, RGO 7/139.

107 George Airy to Mr Dunkin, 1 April 1881, RGO 7/139; Mr Dunkin to George Airy, 1 April 1881, RGO 7/139; George Airy to J.T., 4 April 1881, RGO 7/139; J.T. to George Airy, 4 April 1881, RGO 7/139.

108 A.D.G. Grommelin to Astronomer Royal, 17 November 1906, RGO 7/139.

109 A.D.G. Grommelin to Astronomer Royal, 17 November 1906, RGO 7/139.

110 General Order, 15 February 1913, RGO 7/136.