Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 40 (2009) 360–371

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/ locate /shpsa

Mogg’s celestial sphere (1813): the construction of polite astronomy

Katie TaylorTrinity College, Trinity Street, Cambridge CB2 1TQ, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o

Keywords:Dissected globeEdward MoggEducational toysAstronomyConversation

0039-3681/$ - see front matter � 2009 Elsevier Ltd. Adoi:10.1016/j.shpsa.2009.10.005

E-mail address: kt271@cam.ac.uk1 Te Heesen (2002); Daston (2004); Alberti (2005), Ke

in science.2 Taub (2002), Boner & Eagleton (2004), Eagleton (23 Rousseau (1982); Secord (1985); Myers (1989); Fy

a b s t r a c t

In this paper I discuss a cardboard dissected globe made in 1813 by Edward Mogg, a cartographer andmap seller, to instruct children in the principles of astronomy. Since little is known about the makeror the specific object, I draw on evidence beyond the sphere itself to construct an account of how theobject might have been used. In particular I address conversation as a key part of astronomical educationand examine the way in which the cardboard plates of the sphere, the presentation slipcase and theaccompanying booklet would have prepared young learners for polite astronomical discourse aroundlarge instruments in later life.

� 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

When citing this paper, please use the full journal title Studies in History and Philosophy of Science

1. Introduction

In July 2007 the Whipple Museum of the History of Science reo-pened the Victorian Parlour, a period-style gallery with hands-onactivities for visitors, especially children, to sample. In a grand dis-play case, exhibited alongside larger, more solid globes, resides Ed-ward Mogg’s celestial sphere (1813). A printed booklet entitled Anexplanation & description of Mogg’s celestial sphere (1813, hereafterExplanation), accompanied the twelve cardboard plates that makeup this object, and the two components were conveyed to consum-ers in a flat-pack slipcase (Fig. 1). Neither the Explanation nor theslipcase is displayed in the Parlour. In this paper I move out fromthe sphere to examine the context in which it was embedded, acontext from which it is detached as long as it stands behind mu-seum glass.

Object biographies have gained prevalence in recent years.1

Diverse textual sources frequently inform these discussions, movingbeyond antiquarian accounts of makers, dates and locations.2 In thecase of Mogg’s celestial sphere, the context of production and con-sumption make it programmatically essential, rather than historio-graphically desirable, to take object and text together as two partsof one composite entity. My subject of study must be Mogg’s sphere

ll rights reserved.

ene (2008). Schaffer (2004) on soap

006) and Mosley (2006a,b) all drawfe (2000a,b).

as one material object, rather than an object supplemented by text.This sets my contribution apart from traditional work on the historyof education, which has focused on texts.3 In addition to Mogg’ssphere itself, I draw on diverse primary source objects, includingchildren’s paintings, miniature instruments and astronomical games,to provide an integrated perspective on the history of astronomicaleducation.

Recovering different dimensions of the historical context sur-rounding objects allows the historian to move beyond questionsabout makers and dates to reconstructions of the world in whichthese objects existed. While finding out about the maker and dateof production of an object is important, this process can fruitfullybe viewed as part of a larger project. Objects can be used as sign-posts that point us to facets of the wider world in which they weremade. While we have few details about Mogg or accounts of howindividual users interacted with his sphere either in acquisitionor use, the very existence of the object provides evidence aboutthe salient features of scientific education in the early nineteenthcentury.

Mogg’s celestial sphere was destined for a life of more vigorousinteraction than it can have behind museum glass—the user wasessential to its realisation as a conceptual whole. The knowledge

bubbles provides a particularly strong model for the biography of commercial objects

extensively on texts to enrich accounts of instruments.

Fig. 1. Mogg’s celestial sphere (1813) (globe: diameter 111 mm, height 155 mm; booklet: 133 mm � 220 mm; slipcase: 136 mm � 179 mm [depth not available since thesides are creased and flattening may damage the object]—horizontal measurement is given first throughout). (Wh.5620; used with the permission of the Whipple Museum ofthe History of Science, University of Cambridge.)

K. Taylor / Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 40 (2009) 360–371 361

gained by nineteenth-century children through construction tran-scended astronomical facts and supported a process of social mat-uration. Mogg’s sphere provided children with a didacticpreparation for contemporary conversation. I came to understandthis as the sphere’s original users came to understand astron-omy—through a constructive experience embedding object, textand user.4

Before addressing Mogg’s sphere itself, I assess the role ofglobes in education and outline the ideal of conversation advancedby educationalists in the years around 1800. After a discussion ofMogg’s sphere, I highlight the centrality of construction to its oper-ation. I move on to discuss forms of contemporary instructive con-versation, focusing on didactic discourse as a preparation for politeconversation. In the final section I explore the ways in which theprocess of construction might have guided the social developmentof young users, and chart the preparation that Mogg’s constructivedidacticism provided for politeness; the education that Mogg’scelestial sphere supported was about much more than astronomi-cal fact.

2. Contemporary education

By the early nineteenth century paired globes were firmlyestablished within juvenile instruction. Astronomy had acquireddominance in children’s education partly owing to its connectionwith natural theology; it allowed students ‘to instinctively sub-scribe to the discernible attributes of the Deity’.5 The study of the

4 See Sibum (1995) for manipulation as historical research. The publishers of Bryden (seventeenth-century computation aid. In his introduction to this text, Jim Bennett highlightno provision for such a replica can be made here.

5 Bryan (1815), p. 18.6 Edgeworth & Edgeworth (1798), Vol. 2, p. 420. Kohon (1999), pp. 19–23, discusses

Collection.7 Adams (1789), p. 241.8 King & Millburn (1978), pp. 202–205, describe the younger George Adams’s work.9 Bryan (1799), p. 85.

10 Edgeworth & Edgeworth (1798), Vol. 2, p. 421.

heavens retained its prominent position, even through the rise ofgeography associated with turn-of-the-century war and imperial-ism.6 Thus, celestial and terrestrial globes remained central to astro-nomical instruction in the early nineteenth century.

The younger George Adams, Mathematical Instrument Maker tothe King, declared that,

UNIVERSAL approbation . . . prove[d] that . . . the terrestrial andcelestial globes, are the instruments the best adapted to conveynatural and genuine ideas of astronomy and geography toyoung minds.7

As a prolific author of educational books, Adams was qualifiedto make such assertions, although as a maker he also had vestedinterests in promoting instruments.8 However, leading educational-ists bolstered Adams’s assertions. Margaret Bryan distinguishedAdams’s firm in particular by pointing out that it supplied the globesdepicted in her manuals,9 but some writers were more general intheir praise of globes. Richard and Maria Edgeworth, a father–daugh-ter team of educationalists, insisted that ‘To assist our pupils in geog-raphy, we prefer a globe to common maps’.10 Although Mogg’soffering deviates from the traditional spherical form, Edgeworthianprinciples operate just as forcefully in relation to his ‘sphere’ as totraditional globes.

Practical education (1798), the manifesto for the prominentEdgeworthian programme, provided insights on juvenile instruc-tion in diverse disciplines, gleaned from practical teaching experi-ence. The text reveals an awareness of the need to supplement

1992) offered a set of Napier’s bones by mail order to accompany the account of aed the awareness of original users’ experiences that this afforded readers. Regrettably

the rise of juvenile geography in relation to the Kapp puzzle globe in the Whipple

362 K. Taylor / Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 40 (2009) 360–371

education with entertainment in order to maintain children’sattention,11 chiming with earlier assertions that learning should be‘a pleasure and not a task’.12 Manual interaction and conversationprovided two means to foster engagement.

‘[A]ctive manual employment’, the Edgeworths insisted, was ‘ofconsequence, not only to [children’s] improvement, but to theirhappiness’, explicitly linking manipulation, intellectual edificationand easy enjoyment.13 The pair even suggested a design for cheapinflatable globes, made of ‘oiled silk, to be inflated by a common pairof bellows’.14 Reference to the bellows evokes the domestic setting,which is crucial to the Edgeworths’ ideal of education achieved in afamiliar environment through ‘the usual incidents of life’.15

Conversation was also an important part of the Edgeworths’programme. They held that, ‘a skilful preceptor can apply in con-versation all the principles that we have laboriously endeavouredto make intelligible’.16 First principles could be ‘insensibly acquired’through discussion without overburdening children’s attention.17

Edgeworthian instructive conversation was ideally uncontrived, oc-casioned ‘when little circumstances occur which naturally lead tothe subject.’18 Mogg’s sphere provided precisely the ‘little circum-stance’ that Edgeworthian dialogue required—it exploited manualinteraction as a means to direct natural conversation with a viewto training ‘the Young Tyro in Astronomy’.19

3. Mogg’s celestial sphere

Edward Mogg (worked 1805–1848) first published his celestialsphere in 1813, after issuing a terrestrial dissected globe in the pre-vious year.20 Apart from these two enterprises he seems to haveworked as a maker and seller of maps, operating out of three Londonaddresses: 14 Little Newport Street near Leicester Square (1805–1812);21 51 Charing Cross (1813–1822 certainly);22 and, 14 GreatRussell Street (from 1834 at the latest).23 He published a range ofmaps, many of which he engraved himself, from plans of London,to a ‘Map of Steam Navigation, or WATER ITINERARY’ which extendedto Paris and Brest.24

Mogg’s originality in publishing the celestial sphere is question-able in the light of testimony from one Mrs Johnstone who claimedto be the ‘first and only inventor’ of the terrestrial dissected globe,innovated ‘some years since’, and sold in ‘many hundreds’ by

11 Ibid., pp. 75–118.12 Davidson, Elements of geography, short and plain (London: T. Wilkins, 1787) quoted by13 Edgeworth & Edgeworth (1798), Vol. 2, p. 422.14 Ibid., p. 421.15 Ibid., p. vi.16 Ibid., p. 775; my emphasis.17 Ibid., p. vi.18 Ibid., p. 756.19 Mogg (1813), p. 5.20 Hannas (1972), p. 64. The Morgan Library & Museum, New York, holds one of Mogg’s21 Mogg (1805, 1812a).22 Norgate (2004a,b).23 Hale (2006–2009).24 Mogg (1842), reverse of map.25 The Whipple Museum holds one of Johnstone’s terrestrial dissected globes (accession26 Johnstone (1812), p. 3.27 Gingerich (1993) discusses moveable paper instruments that were intended to remain28 Mogg (1826), backmatter. Note that globe treatises usually had to be purchased at an

Jones (1787), backmatter, reveals that Ferguson’s text retailed at the considerable sum of29 In 1812 Mogg’s ‘New map of the country twenty–four miles round London’ retailed at

the same in 1842. Mogg (1842), reverse of map. The same pattern holds for ‘Mogg’s new30 Squire (1818), titlepage.31 Keene (2008), pp. 196–213.32 Johnstone (1812), p. 4.33 Stephens (1972), p. 66; Vickery (1998), p. 343 n. 86.34 Carey (1814), p. iii. Sutherland (1990) discusses various preparatory contexts alongsid35 Adams (1789), backmatter.36 Dekker & van der Krogt (1993), pp. 107–112.

1812.25 However, Mrs Johnstone does not mention the celestialsphere, even though she claimed to instruct ‘many of the Nobil-ity . . . in the use of the globes’.26 Thus, we might conclude thatMogg’s celestial sphere represents an enterprising innovation onan initially plagiarised form.

Contrary to our expectations of a celestial sphere, Mogg’s prod-uct was conveyed to the buyer as a flat package.27 A decoratedslipcase of firm paper protected twelve cardboard plates and thethirty-eight page Explanation. The booklet’s first recto page gave alist of instructions for the assembly of the plates, which also actedas a contents list. The remaining pages gave what the associatedadvertisement described as an ‘Introduction to Astronomy’.

Mogg’s celestial sphere—plates, booklet and case—retailed atten shillings in 1826.28 The stability of the prices of Mogg’s otherproductions over time suggests that the 1826 cost is a good indicatorof the 1813 price.29 Assuming that Mogg’s celestial sphere retailed atten shillings in 1813, it was only slightly more expensive than nearcontemporary teaching texts. Thomas Squire’s A popular grammar ofthe elements of astronomy (hereafter Popular grammar) retailed atnine shillings and six pence in 1818.30 In terms of didactic objects,Mogg’s sphere would have been on a par with the mid-priced ‘amus-ing productions’ in John Wallis’s 1813 catalogue and therefore acces-sible to ‘‘middle-class” consumers.31

The full title of Mogg’s Explanation suggested the sphere’s use in‘the Instruction of Youth, in the First Principles of Astronomy’. MrsJohnstone situates the dissected globes more specifically as being‘of considerable service in facilitating . . . lessons previous to theuse of the Globes.’32 Educationalists’ recommendations and episto-lary evidence suggest that children began lessons with globes ataround the age of ten,33 so we may infer that Mogg’s sphere was in-tended for children younger than this. By 1814, the globes were ‘notonly used in every Seminary of Education, but in every genteel Pri-vate Family.’34 It is reasonable to assume that the dissected globeswould similarly have been used in these two contexts.

4. The process of construction

Dissected globes were by no means the first small-scale objectsused in the instruction of children. Instrument-makers offeringproducts such as miniature quadrants35 and pocket globes36 had

Shefrin (1999), p. 251.

terrestrial dissected globes (accession no. JPW2894).

no. 5619).

flat.additional cost, for example, Martin (1762), Ferguson (1768a,b), and Adams (1769).

one pound and one shilling.six shillings. Mogg (1812b), backmatter. The cost of a map of the same area remainedtravelling map of England, Wales, and Scotland’.

e the rise of formal schooling.

Fig. 2. Scan of parts of plates C and D of Mogg’s celestial sphere, featuring letters that key into text in the Explanation (48 mm � 130 mm approx.). (Wh.5620; used with thepermission of the Whipple Museum of the History of Science, University of Cambridge.)

K. Taylor / Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 40 (2009) 360–371 363

already moved beyond two dimensions in transmitting knowledgeto children. Mogg took this further by allowing young users to breakinto the third dimension for themselves through the act of construc-tion. In this way, as with other educational models, children under-went ‘the process of knowing by making.’37

Manual interaction made the bare facts of globe lessons morepalatable for the child who found numbers tiresome, in line withthe Edgeworthian notion of pleasure through practical engage-ment.38 The form in which the sphere was conveyed to younglearners heightened the sense of enjoyment. When users tookthe package in hand the first impression was of the globe depictedon the slipcase, although the shape of the case, and the subse-quent opening thereof, suggested that a flat object was containedwithin. This disjunction implied a narrative of construction—thechild was to build a likeness of the grand instrument on the casefrom the flat plates it contained. The creative task, defined by theslipcase image, was articulated explicitly in the instruction listthat readers found when they opened the Explanation. Success,and the associated feeling of delight, would reward the childwho could complete the constructive task. Pleasure as part oflearning, as discussed by the Edgeworths, was essential to peda-gogy in Mogg’s celestial sphere, yet was embodied in neither theplates nor the Explanation, but in the activity that arose whenthe two came together.39

Initial enjoyment derived from regarding the attractive platesand forming them into a likeness of the globe on the case.40 Later,

37 Hopwood & de Chadarevian (2004), p. 11.38 A watercolour painting (143 mm � 186 mm) by Lady Agnes Buller from the period 18

handkerchief pressed to her face. The painting is published in Lasdun (1983), p. 36.39 Keene (2007) reconstructs the significance of making, rather than using, instruments.40 Whitehouse (1971), p. 32, points out that in games such as Pleasures of astronomy ‘the p

without at the same time acquiring useful knowledge and instruction’.41 Mogg (1813), p. 22.

beyond the initial composition of the sphere, the Explanation de-pended on cross-referencing to diagrams on the plates; the accountof the appearance of the heavens from various terrestrial locations isincomprehensible without the cardboard pieces (Fig. 2):

If the observer be any where on the Terrestrial Equator e Cq . . . he is in the Plane of the Celestial Equator . . . and the Axisof the Earth n C s, is coincident with the Plane of his Hori-zon . . . As the Earth turns round the line N C S, the whole Heav-ens M O L I seem to turn round the same line, but the contraryway.41

The child’s aim was defined by the feature that the Explanationreferred to. As the arrangement of the composed sphere preventedvisual access to many of the illustrative devices referred to inMogg’s text, the pleasure associated with successfully locatingthe required pieces necessarily depended on continual processesof construction and deconstruction (Fig. 3). In this way, ‘activemanual employment’ pervaded the otherwise dry didactics deliv-ered in the Explanation.

5. Contemporary conversation

In the context of the sphere’s original use, the pleasure of activ-ity might have been augmented through conversation. Paintings byearly nineteenth-century children suggest that globes featured in

27–1832 shows a young girl standing at the globe with a book in front of her and a

ictures themselves were pleasurable to look at. Nevertheless it was impossible to play

Fig. 3. Mogg’s celestial sphere composed. Note that users would have to disassemble the plates to see all of the details mentioned in the Explanation. (Wh.5620; used with thepermission of the Whipple Museum of the History of Science, University of Cambridge.)

Fig. 4. The didactic setting: Mary Yelloly’s (aged nine) portrayal of a fictional schoolroom (1826–1827), complete with globes at back left (watercolour, original dimensionsnot available). From Stainton (2007), p. 61 (used with permission).

364 K. Taylor / Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 40 (2009) 360–371

two distinct conversational contexts in Mogg’s time: the didacticand the polite (Figs. 4 & 5).42 Contemporary literary evidence con-firms this dichotomy. Many authors writing for juvenile audiencesin the early nineteenth century chose conversational forms to con-vey philosophical ideas; their texts can be broadly categorised ascatechismal or narrative.43

Catechisms concentrated on the communication of numericalinformation and the development of a novel vocabulary; the didac-

42 Mogg’s celestial sphere was certainly sold until 1826. Mogg (1826), backmatter. These43 Myers (1989) gives an incisive account of the range of textures in dialogic writing in44 Squire (1818). This way of working would have been familiar to pupils from other fie

tic question-and-answer form was characteristic of this genre.Squire’s Popular grammar featured astronomical problems followedby quantitative questions couched in technical language, usingwords such as ‘meridian’ and ‘horizon’, and requiring a numericalanswer. Often the text offered a means to move from question toanswer, by setting down the required ‘Elements’ and ‘GeometricalConstruction’ before providing the worked calculation andsolution.44

slightly later paintings are therefore relevant to my study.science.lds, particularly geometry, with the Euclidian precedent.

Fig. 5. The polite setting: Cecil-Elizabeth Drummond’s ‘When I was 16’ (1830) showing people conversing near the globe at front left (watercolour, 187 mm � 129 mm). FromLasdun (1983), p. 34. �V&A Images/Victoria and Albert Museum, London.

K. Taylor / Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 40 (2009) 360–371 365

Narrative texts employed more or less nuanced characterdevelopment and made philosophical topics engaging throughpolite conversation.45 Many such texts claimed to reflect authorialexperience, mirroring authentic social interactions. Jane Marcet’sConversations on chemistry was apparently based on discussionswith a friend whom the author consulted for clarification afterleaving a public lecture with more questions than answers.46 JamesFerguson’s dialogue was likewise based on lessons given to theyoung Anne Emblin.47 Similarly, it seems that catechisms were of-ten based on rote-learned interchanges through which childrenwere instructed. Keith tells us that his catechismal text had ‘beenformed entirely from the practice of Instruction’.48 Rote learningwas so central to instruction that he was tentative in proposingthat ‘it would be better for the student not to learn the answersby heart, verbatim from the book’.49 The alternative to this regur-gitant method, according to Keith, is for the student ‘to frame ananswer himself, from an attentive perusal of his lesson: by whichmeans the understanding will be called into exercise as well asthe memory’.50

Primary literature suggests that the recall based catechismalmethod of learning was a route to the more creative narrativemode of understanding. In the dedication of his dry didactic globetreatise, J. Johnson expressed hope for his pupils’ ‘improvement inuseful knowledge, in valuable accomplishments, and, above all, inamiable and virtuous dispositions’.51 Facts and definitions wereconsidered to be essential checkpoints on the path to politeness,and Mogg delivered such information in abundance throughout theExplanation:

45 ‘Tom Telescope’ (1761); Edgeworth (1801); Marcet (1806).46 Fyfe (2004), p. xxii. It seems that Marcet also penned Conversations on astronomy, an un

Los Angeles.47 Walters (1997), p. 131. See Millburn & King (1988) for a biography of Ferguson.48 Keith (1811), p. vii.49 Ibid., p. 335.50 Ibid.51 Johnson (1811), Dedication.52 Mogg (1813), p. 13.53 Secord (1985), p. 132.

Jupiter . . . being about 424 millions of miles from the Sun; andgoing at the rate of 25,543 miles every hour in his Orbit as inthe circle X, finishes his annual period in 11 of our years 313days 15 hours. He is above 1000 times as big as the Earth, forhis circumference is 254 thousand 470 miles; which is morethan ten times the circumference of the Earth.

He turns round his Axis in 9 hours and 56 minutes, so that hisyear contains 10 thousand 464 days . . . his equatorial inhabit-ants are carried 25 thousand 920 miles every hour (which is920 miles more than the whole circumference of the Earth,)besides the 25,543 above-mentioned, which is common to allparts of his surface . . . 52

Crucially, though, such sections were cross referenced to theattractive plates, and were printed alongside guidelines on the con-versational contexts in which such potentially dull figures could bedeployed. Through his celestial sphere, Mogg provided the ele-ments young learners needed to participate in polite astronomicaldiscourse.

6. The process of social development

Juvenile instruction had assumed new significance in the cen-tury preceding Mogg’s activity. In Some thoughts concerning educa-tion (1693), John Locke recast the child’s mind as a tabula rasa,raising questions about how to make the most fitting impressionsupon it.53 This issue became increasingly relevant as infant mortality

published manuscript at the Young Research Library at the University of California at

Fig. 6. Scan of parts of plates A and B of Mogg’s celestial sphere. Note that the construction slits obscure several details of the planisphere (48 mm � 97 mm approx.).(Wh.5620; used with the permission of the Whipple Museum of the History of Science, University of Cambridge.)

366 K. Taylor / Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 40 (2009) 360–371

decreased through the eighteenth century, and the role of children inthe family came to be reappraised.54 By the mid-eighteenth centurypoliteness, which could be conferred, had replaced virtue, which wasinnate,55 and scientific education became a requisite part of socialdevelopment for ‘‘middle-class” children.56 The child was identifiedas a potential consumer of scientific knowledge.57 The range andcharacter of scientific activities available in the early nineteenth cen-tury reflected this.58

The slipcase image, with its meridian and horizon rings and or-nate stand, is closer to the globes of the adult world than to Mogg’scelestial sphere. Thus, the representation suggested a narrative ofdevelopment from child novice to adult globe user. Mogg’s celestialsphere effected this process of maturation by providing a didacticpreparation for genteel encounters with instruments and interloc-utors, satisfying polite astronomy’s imperatives to consume and toconverse.59

Aspiring consumers, for whom possession could signal polite-ness, supported the use of instruments as centrepieces for politeconversation.60 Mogg’s celestial sphere taught young learners howto interact with these instruments in two ways. At a basic level, man-ual interaction developed the sense of touch and the ability to manip-

54 Plumb (1982), p. 286.55 Klein (1984–1985), p. 187.56 Plumb (1982), pp. 290–291; Walters (1997), p. 124.57 Plumb (1982) details the creation of the child–consumer.58 Altick (1978); Hays (1983).59 Walters (1997).60 Ibid., p. 136.61 See Secord (2002) for the management of the balance between rational and sensual e62 Mogg (1813), p. 18.63 Davidoff & Hall (1987), pp. 281–282; Shteir (1987), pp. 38–39; Fara (2004), pp. 205–264 Wakefield (1800), p. 300.

ulate objects precisely.61 More specifically, users were prepared forwork with celestial globes through experience with features on thesphere’s plates that reflected those on larger instruments.

The celestial planisphere allowed children to visually familiar-ise themselves with the constellations. ‘[I]ntroducing the subjectto the Eye of the Pupil’62 was clearly important to Mogg, as he pro-vided a second planisphere, lest the details of the first one were ob-scured by the construction slits (Fig. 6). The slanted zodiac ring ofMogg’s sphere also recalled the scales used on horizon rings on lar-ger globes. Interaction with the planisphere and zodiac semicirclestrained young learners to use more advanced celestial globes.

Girls as well as boys used dissected globes (Fig. 7), suggestingthat the objects were deemed to provide instruction appropriatefor young learners of both sexes. In the early nineteenth century,the primary aim of education for ‘‘middle-class” females was prep-aration for life as wives and mothers who could converse with hus-bands and sons.63 Even Priscilla Wakefield in her campaigns forwomen’s rights emphasised that she was not one of the ‘bold projec-tor[s]’ who desired ‘equality with men’.64 It is significant that theestablishment in the late 1810s of numerous local academies toeducate girls outside the home seems to have resulted in ‘No expan-

ngagement.

06, 209. For philosophical flirting see Secord (2007), pp. 38–39.

Fig. 7. Frontispiece from Johnstone (1812) showing women using a dissected globe alongside books (133 mm � 79 mm). (Wh.5619; used with the permission of the WhippleMuseum of the History of Science, University of Cambridge.)

K. Taylor / Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 40 (2009) 360–371 367

sion in intellectual content . . . while polite accomplishment is still inabundant evidence’.65

Crafts based on paper and its manipulation, such as scrapboo-king66 and making botanical ‘paper mosaics’,67 were widely prac-tised by women, for both pleasure and instruction. The materialsand constructive process that constituted Mogg’s celestial spherethus recalled women’s pursuits. This, coupled with the visual evi-dence for the use of dissected globes by young girls, situates the ob-jects in the development of sociability, at the start of a process thatused didactic instruction as a route to polite conversation.

Talking about astronomy required the acquisition of the noveltechnical vocabulary found in didactic texts. Educators held that‘clear and accurate Definitions of the various Circles and Positionsof the Sphere’ were of the ‘utmost importance’,68 and that instruc-tion could be facilitated through repetition of ‘technical termswhich common use preserves in the memory’.69 Repeated use ofMogg’s celestial sphere could have resulted in ‘common use’ of‘technical terms’. Additionally, the Explanation provided several def-initions, some of which referred to everyday circumstances, thusassociating new terms with ‘the usual incidents of life’70 encoun-tered in ‘common’ contexts. The ‘Planets’ Axes’ were defined byanalogy to the line within ‘A bowl thrown out of ones [sic] handin the open air, [which it] turns [a] round . . . whilst it movesforward’.71

Recommendations from educational theorists that hearing andspeaking reinforced definitions may have prompted parentalencouragement of verbal articulation of new words, and their

65 Vickery (1998), p. 344 n. 86.66 Secord (2006).67 Shteir (1996), pp. 43–45.68 Carey (1814), p. iv.69 Edgeworth and Edgeworth (1798), Vol. 1, p. vi.70 Ibid.71 Mogg (1813), p. 5.72 Trimmer, ‘The new game of emulation for the instruction and amusement of youth. H73 Keene (2008), pp. 196–213. See Turner (1987) for various kinds of philosophical game74 Walters (1997), pp. 127–128.75 See Hopwood and de Chadarevian (2004), p. 11, for the use of paper items to manage76 Secord (2006), pp. 184–186.77 Brooke (1977). See Dick (1982) for an assessment of the relationship between pluralit78 Mogg (1813), p. 3.

meanings, to consolidate understanding.72 Parents or peers mayalso have read the instructions for composition aloud, as they didat the start of contemporary board games.73 In my first attempt tocompose the globe, I missed out one of the instructions—help fromothers would have made the process more straightforward. Thus,Mogg’s sphere could have acted as a locus for conversation, as wellas providing the tools for discourse in other situations. Familiarisa-tion with astronomical terms, however it was achieved, was essen-tial to the civility of polite astronomy which, following theconventions of polite conversation, depended on mutual under-standing between interlocutors.74

The Explanation aimed to ensure that the didactically conveyedvocabulary and skills acquired through the construction of Mogg’ssphere were employed in appropriate, that is to say polite, are-nas.75 Polite discourse depended on the diversity of individuals’interests, which allowed them to engage with a variety of interlocu-tors.76 The Explanation highlighted contemporary discussions inwhich novices could exhibit their newly-acquired astronomicalknowledge in a socially acceptable way; here I will focus on the plu-rality of worlds debate and natural theology.

Discussions on the plurality of worlds gained importance in thenineteenth century in relation to formative debates in the new lifesciences.77 Mogg’s Explanation adverted to the plurality theme ontwo levels. Firstly, Mogg asserted from the outset that ‘the hypothe-sis of a plurality of Worlds is rational’.78 Thus, he provided a straight-forward affirmation of the appropriateness of discussing extra-terrestrial life. Secondly, Mogg conveyed numerical information on

arris. 1805’, in Guardian of Education, IV (1805), p. 77, quoted by Keene (2008), Ch. 5.s.

interactions with objects.

y of worlds debates and the scientific enterprise.

Fig. 8. Mogg’s advertisement, in which the ‘SUPREME BEING’ is mentioned at the very centre of the page (105 mm � 146 mm). (Wh.5620; used with the permission of theWhipple Museum of the History of Science, University of Cambridge.)

368 K. Taylor / Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 40 (2009) 360–371

the tacit assumption of life on other planets. Venus’ diurnal motionis described in terms of ‘the inhabitants about her Equator [who] arecarried 43 miles every hour’.79 Thus, the sphere’s users came to viewthe plurality of worlds debate as a reasonable discussion in whichthey could deploy informed astronomical knowledge.

Users also learnt that astronomy could be advantageously inte-grated into religious discussion. Astronomical discourse had beenrendered polite in part through an association with moderated rev-erence for the Creator.80 By relating knowledge of the heavens to Godin a way that steered an acceptable course between atheism andenthusiasm, conversational astronomy reinforced polite religiosityand the ideal of rational belief.81 Mogg carefully embedded sublime

79 Ibid., p. 8.80 Walters (1997), p. 129.81 Pinnock (1823) emphasised the connection between instructive conversation and reli

from Scripture.82 Mogg (1813), p. 4.83 Advertisement for Mogg’s celestial sphere. I have not yet identified the Dr Young quo

reveries on the ‘calm, regular, and harmonious’ order of the SolarSystem in didactic descriptions of the ‘Declination of the Sun, togetherwith the Planets and Comets’.82 He also established the theologicalworth of the sphere from the users’ first contact with the object byissuing an advertisement in which the ‘SUPREME BEING’ was literallylocated at the centre of the project (Fig. 8). Children who learntastronomy using the sphere were guaranteed to become more pious,since ‘An undevout Astronomer is mad.’83 Thus, Mogg self-consciouslyprovided a polite model for the discussion of astronomy in theExplanation, using dry facts to purge enthusiasm from talk of God.

In addition to suggesting appropriate debates, interaction withMogg’s sphere taught users how to talk about polite instruments.

gious debate by using accents to promote the correct pronunciation of proper names

ted here by Mogg.

K. Taylor / Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 40 (2009) 360–371 369

Liba Taub has argued that the orrery’s popularity was grounded inits ability to represent ‘phenomena of day and night, the seasons,and eclipses’, that is, the solar phenomena.84 Attention to the solarphenomena was also evidenced in Ferguson’s recommendation of ademonstration using a three inch globe to give a ‘delightful anddemonstrative view’ of ‘the cause of different lengths of days andnights, and of the vicissitude of seasons’.85 Images on Mogg’s plates,some of which seem to have been adapted from Ferguson’s dia-grams,86 emphasised the solar phenomena on which polite discus-sion centred, acting as a sieve that retained those elementsconsidered most appropriate in polite conversation.87 By highlight-ing salient elements of the Explanation through visual representa-tion, Mogg instilled in young learners ideals of acceptableconversation among the groups that convened around politeinstruments.

Through the process of construction that was so central toMogg’s celestial sphere, young users gained a sense of a series ofunwritten rules delineating the contributions they were expectedto make to polite astronomical discourse. The education providedby Mogg’s sphere consisted of far more than the transmission ofastronomical facts. As children pushed the sphere into the thirddimension under the guidance of the Explanation, they learnt tomanipulate the many parts of a composite object skillfully. Morethan this, they became familiar with specific features that theywould later encounter in larger globes. The vocabulary requiredto make sense of astronomy was internalised, and the contexts inwhich newly acquired words could be employed were highlighted.Thus, as juvenile learners constructed the sphere they themselveswere constructed as participants in polite astronomy.

7. Conclusion

An understanding of Mogg’s celestial sphere has historical andprogrammatic implications. I have emphasised the extent to whichconversation permeated polite astronomy in the early nineteenthcentury, such that children’s educational aids depended upon dia-logic interaction to achieve their aims. Importantly, these aimswere not solely concerned with inculcating technical facts and def-initions, but also related to the internalisation of the tacit knowl-edge required to participate in polite astronomical conversation.In particular, practical interaction with Mogg’s sphere made younglearners aware of acceptable topics and helped to establish instru-ments as conversation pieces. Familiarity with specific features oflarger globes was fostered, and instruction-led manipulation wasencouraged. Thus, children acquired some of the skills requiredto operate instruments, especially globes. However, recommenda-tions were always underpinned by canonical polite conversation,so that children instructed through Mogg’s sphere were steepedin the importance of lively and varied discussion, and able to en-gage with diverse interlocutors.

Working with Mogg’s celestial sphere reinforces the need totake text and object together and, crucially, to envisage the roleof the user when doing so. Hands-on experience of the sphere,mediated by the Explanation, catalyses our understanding. By usingobjects under the guidance of accompanying texts and other pri-mary sources, we gain broader contextual awareness. Withoutpractical investigation, Mogg’s sphere would have remained a sta-tic object in a glass display case. By following instructions, identi-fying relevant plates, constructing and deconstructing, weencounter the sphere as a whole. This practical experience opens

84 Taub (2006), p. 419. For an example of an alternative analysis based on Joseph Wright o225–228.

85 Ferguson (1768b), pp. 15–18.86 Compare, for instance, Mogg’s vicissitudes of the seasons plate with Ferguson (1768a)87 The Castlemaine Globe also emphasised solar phenomena. De Soysa (2003), pp. 164–1

the sphere up in new forms, suggesting novel historiographicalpossibilities. Interaction with the sphere alerted me to the antici-pation and excitement engendered in its original users, a feelingthat I have aimed to recreate by tracing user experience from thevery first encounter with the case. I suggest that we take text–ob-ject–user interaction seriously, and pursue active interrogation ofinstruments where the status of artefacts permits. While completeempathy may be impossible, awareness is not, and indeed is thebasis of history. Just as manual interaction provided Mogg’s userswith a way to converse with their peers, so it furnishes us withan illuminating form of dialogue with the past.

In the case of Mogg’s sphere, the fact that the plates were soldwith a booklet in a case made it essential to consider these ele-ments together. However, I have also moved beyond these sourcesto reach my understanding of the contemporary significance of theobject, considering miniature instruments, educational texts andvisual and textual accounts from children of the period. Since ob-jects always enter a world of texts, objects and people, it seemsthat such a broad evidential base might prove useful beyond thefield of ‘composite objects’ like Mogg’s celestial sphere.

Mogg’s sphere initially seemed to present a problem for the his-torian, with little direct evidence about sales figures or the processby which the sphere was distributed to users. While attempts torecover such information remain frustrated, the sphere has proveduseful as an indicator of wider concerns in contemporary society.Objects might be said to act as signposts. Traditionally, it seemsthat historians have looked at the pointers going towards the ma-ker; signatures and evidence of techniques might tell us about whomade an object and the kind of environment in which they worked.We might also benefit from looking at the pointers that go in otherdirections, pointing towards the users of an object; the featuresthat are emphasised, the way that the object must be handledand commonalities with other contemporary practices might tellus about the intended audience and how the object was to be used.Working in this way provides a means to recover the contempo-rary significance of objects in broad contexts—studies of micro-evi-dence need not be micro-studies.

Acknowledgements

I am grateful for a studentship from Trinity College, Cambridge,which made this research possible. Comments from the audienceat the British Society for the History of Science Postgraduate Con-ference 2008 were helpful to me. Elizabeth Denlinger, formerly ofthe Morgan Museum & Library, was very obliging in providingscans of Mogg’s terrestrial sphere. Thanks also to Melanie Keene,Sachiko Kusukawa, Nicky Reeves, Eleanor Robson, Jim Secord, LibaTaub and an anonymous reader for reading earlier drafts of this pa-per and making helpful recommendations.

References

Adams, G. (1769). A treatise describing the construction, and explaining the use, of newcelestial and terrestrial globes (2nd ed.). London: George Adams.

Adams, G. (1789). Astronomical and geographical essays. London.Alberti, S. J. M. M. (2005). Objects and the museum. Isis, 96(4), 559–571.Altick, R. D. (1978). The shows of London. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of

Harvard University Press.Boner, P., & Eagleton, C. (2004). Instruments of mystery. Cambridge: Whipple

Museum of the History of Science. (A publication of the Cambridge LatinTherapy Group)

Brooke, J. (1977). Natural theology and the plurality of worlds: Observations on theBrewster–Whewell debate. Annals of Science, 34(3), 221–286.

f Derby’s ‘A philosopher giving that lecture on the orrery’ (1766) see Solkin (1992), pp.

, plate facing p. 135.65.

370 K. Taylor / Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 40 (2009) 360–371

Bryan, M. (1799). A compendious system of astronomy. London: J. Wallis; Wynne &Scholey.

Bryan, M. (1815). A comprehensive astronomical and geographical class book, for theuse of schools and private families. London.

Bryden, D. (1992). Napier’s bones: A history and instruction manual. London:Harriet Wynter Ltd.

Carey, G. G. (1814). Directions for using Kirkwood’s globes. Edinburgh: R. Kirkwood,Engraver, Parliament Square, & W. Blackwood, Bookseller, South Bridge.

Daston, L. (2004). The glass flowers. In L. Daston (Ed.), Things that talk: Object lessonsfrom art and science (pp. 223–256). New York: Zone Books.

Davidoff, L., & Hall, C. (1987). Family fortunes: Men and women of the English middleclass, 1780–1850. London: Hutchinson.

de Soysa, K. (2003). Using globes and celestial planispheres in Restoration England.Ph.D. thesis, University of Cambridge.

Dekker, E., & van der Krogt, P. (1993). Globes from the western world. London:Zwemmer.

Dick, S. J. (1982). Plurality of worlds: The origins of the extraterrestrial life debate fromDemocritus to Kant. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Eagleton, C. (2006). Medieval sundials and manuscript sources: The transmission ofinformation about the navicula and the organum ptolomei in fifteenth-centuryEurope. In S. Kusukawa, & I. Maclean, (Eds.), Transmitting knowledge: Words,images, and instruments in early modern Europe (pp. 41–72). Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Edgeworth, M., & Edgeworth, R. L. (1798). Practical education (2 vols.). London: J.Johnson.

Edgeworth, M. (1801). Harry and Lucy. London: Printed for J. Johnson.Fara, P. (2004). Pandora’s breeches: Women. science and power in the Enlightenment.

London: Pimlico.Ferguson, J. (1768a). The young gentleman and lady’s astronomy, familiarly explained

in ten dialogues between Neander and Eudosia. London: Printed for A. Millar andT. Cadell, in the Strand.

Ferguson, J. (1768b). The young gentleman and lady’s astronomy, familiarly explainedin ten dialogues between Neander and Eudosia to which is added the descriptionand use of the globes and the armillary sphere. Dublin: Printed by BoulterGrierson.

Fyfe, A. (2000a). Reading children’s books in late eighteenth-century dissentingfamilies. The Historical Journal, 43(2), 453–473.

Fyfe, A. (2000b). Young readers and the sciences. In M. Frasca-Spada, & N. Jardine(Eds.), Books and the sciences in history (pp. 276–290). Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Fyfe, A. (2004). Introduction to Conversations on chemistry. In B. Lightman (Ed.),Science writing by women, Vol. I. J. Marcet, Conversations on chemistry (pp. xxi–xxvii). Bristol: Thoemmes Continuum.

Gingerich, O. (1993). Astronomical paper instruments with moving parts. In R. G. W.Anderson, J. A. Bennett, & W. F. Ryan (Eds.), Making instruments count (pp. 63–74). Aldershot: Variorum.

Hale, D. (2006–2009). Mogg’s strangers guide to London exhibiting all the variousalterations & improvements complete to the present time January 1st, 1834. InMAPCO: Map and Plan Collection Online. http://archivemaps.com/mapco/mogg/mogg.htm. (Accessed 22 October 2007)

Hannas, L. (1972). The English jigsaw puzzle, 1760–1890. London: Wayland.Hays, J. N. (1983). The London Lecturing Empire, 1800–50. In I. Inkster, & J. Morrell

(Eds.), Metropolis and province: Science in British culture, 1780–1850 (pp. 91–119). London: Hutchinson.

Hopwood, N., & de Chadarevian, S. (2004). Dimensions of modelling. In S. deChadarevian, & N. Hopwood (Eds.), Models: The third dimension of science (pp. 1–15). Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Johnson, J. (1811). An introduction to the use of the globes. London: J. Johnson.Johnstone, Mrs. (1812). Description and use of Mrs. Johnstone’s new invented pocket

sphere, or the globe dissected. London: Printed for the Author.Jones, W. (1787). The description and use of a new portable orrery. London: Printed for

and sold by John Jones, and son.Keene, M. (2007). ‘Every boy & girl a scientist’: Instruments for children in interwar

Britain. Isis, 98(2), 266–289.Keene, M. (2008). Object lessons: Sensory science education, 1830–1870. Ph.D. thesis,

University of Cambridge.Keith, T. (1811). A new treatise on the use of the globes: Or a philosophical view of the

Earth and heavens. London: Printed for the Author; and for Longman, Hurst,Rees, Orme, and Brown, Paternoster-Row.

King, H. C., & Millburn, J. R. (1978). Geared to the stars: The evolution of planetariums,orreries, and astronomical clocks. Bristol: Adam Hilger.

Klein, L. (1984–1985). The third earl of Shaftesbury and the progress of politeness.Eighteenth-Century Studies, 18, 186–214.

Kohon, S. (1999). Geography as a game: The case of a puzzle globe. M.Phil.essay, Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University ofCambridge.

Lasdun, S. (1983). Making Victorians: The Drummond children’s world, 1827–1832.London: Victor Gollancz.

Locke, J. (1693). Some thoughts concerning education. London: Printed for A. and J.Churchill.

Marcet, J. (1806). Conversations on chemistry. London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, &Orme.

Martin, B. (1762). The description and use of both the globes, the armillary sphere, andorrery. London: Benjamin Martin.

Millburn, J. R., & King, H. C. (1988). Wheelwright of the heavens: The life & work ofJames Ferguson, FRS. London: Vade-Mecum.

Mogg, E. (1805). An entire new plan of the cities of London & Westminster. London:Edward Mogg.

Mogg, E. (1812a). Mogg’s twenty four miles round London. London: Edward Mogg.Mogg, E. (1812b). An explanation and description of Mogg’s dissected globe; or pocket

sphere. London: Published by the Proprietor, Edward Mogg.Mogg, E. (1813). An explanation and description of Mogg’s celestial sphere. London:

Edward Mogg.Mogg, E. (1826). Mogg’s pocket itinerary. London: Printed for the Proprietor, Edward

Mogg.Mogg, E. (1842). Mogg’s strangers’ guide through London. London: Edward Mogg.Mosley, A. (2006a). Objects of knowledge: Mathematics and models in sixteenth-

century cosmology and astronomy. In S. Kusukawa, & I. Maclean (Eds.),Transmitting knowledge: Words, images, and instruments in early modern Europe(pp. 193–216). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Mosley, A. (2006b). Spheres and texts on spheres: The book–instrumentrelationship and an armillary sphere in the Whipple Museum of the Historyof Science. In L. C. Taub, & F. Willmoth (Eds.), The Whipple Museum of the Historyof Science: instruments and interpretations (pp. 301–318). Cambridge: WhippleMuseum of the History of Science.

Myers, G. (1989). Science for women and children: The dialogue of popular sciencein the nineteenth century. In J. Christie, & S. Shuttleworth (Eds.), Naturetransfigured: Science and literature, 1700–1900 (pp. 171–200). Manchester &New York: Manchester University Press.

Norgate, M. (2004). Road book, Survey of the High Roads of England and Wales,published by Edward Mogg, 51 Charing Cross, London, 1816–17. In idem,Checklist of Hampshire maps. http://www.geog.port.ac.uk/webmap/hantscat/html/p0000064.htm. (Accessed 22 October 2007)

Norgate, M. (2004). Road map, The Country round Southampton, and The Routefrom Chichester to Fareham, published by Edward Mogg, Charing Cross, London,1822. In idem, Checklist of Hampshire maps. http://www.geog.port.ac.uk/webmap/hantscat/html/hmap0162.htm. (Accessed 22 October 2007)

Pinnock, W. (1823). A catechism of sacred geography; being a familiar description ofsuch countries, cities & minor places, as are mentioned in the Holy Scriptures.London: Printed for G. & W. B. Whittaker.

Plumb, J. H. (1982). The new world of children in eighteenth-century England. In N.McKendrick, J. Brewer, & J. H. Plumb, The birth of a consumer society: Thecommercialization of eighteenth-century England (pp. 286–315). Bloomington:Indiana University Press.

Rousseau, G. S. (1982). Science books and their readers in the eighteenth century. InI. Rivers (Ed.), Books and their readers in eighteenth-century England (pp. 197–255). Leicester: Leicester University Press.

Schaffer, S. (2004). A science whose business is bursting: Soap bubbles ascommodities in classical physics. In L. Daston (Ed.), Things that talk: Objectlessons from art and science (pp. 147–194). New York: Zone Books.

Secord, A. (2002). Botany on a plate: Pleasure and the power of pictures inpromoting early nineteenth-century scientific knowledge. Isis, 93, 28–57.

Secord, J. A. (1985). Newton in the nursery: Tom Telescope and the philosophy oftops and balls, 1761–1838. History of Science, 23, 127–151.

Secord, J. A. (2006). Scrapbook science: Composite caricatures in late GeorgianEngland. In A. B. Shteir, & B. Lightman (Eds.), Figuring it out: Science, gender, andvisual culture (pp. 164–191). Hanover: University Press of New England.

Secord, J. A. (2007). How scientific conversation became shop talk. In A. Fyfe, & B.Lightman (Eds.), Science in the marketplace: Nineteenth-century sites andexperiences (pp. 23–59). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Shefrin, J. (1999). ‘Make it a pleasure and not a task’: Educational games for childrenin Georgian England. Princeton University Library Chronicle, 60(2), 251–275.

Shteir, A. B. (1987). Botany in the breakfast room: Women and early nineteenth-century British plant study. In P. G. Abir-Am, & D. Outram (Eds.), Uneasy careersand intimate lives: women in science, 1789–1979 (pp. 31–44). New Brunswick:Rutgers University Press.

Shteir, A. B. (1996). Cultivating women, cultivating science: Flora’s daughters andbotany in England, 1760–1860. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Sibum, H. O. (1995). Reworking the mechanical value of heat: Instruments ofprecision and gestures of accuracy in early Victorian England. Studies in Historyand Philosophy of Science, 26(1), 73–106.

Solkin, D. H. (1992). Painting for money: The visual arts and the public sphere ineighteenth-century England. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Squire, T. (1818). A popular grammar of the elements of astronomy, adapted to the useof students and public schools. London: Printed for J. Souter, No. 73, St. Paul’sChurch-Yard.

Stephens, J. E. (Ed.). (1972). Aubrey on education: A hitherto unpublished manuscriptby the author of ‘Brief lives’. London & Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Sutherland, G. (1990). Education. In F. M. L. Thompson (Ed.), The Cambridge socialhistory of Britain, 1750–1950, Vol. 3 (pp. 119–169). Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Taub, L. C. (2002). Instruments of Alexandrian astronomy: The uses of theequinoctial rings. In C. J. Tuplin, & T. E. Rihll (Eds.), Science and mathematics inAncient Greek culture (pp. 133–149). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Taub, L. C. (2006). Are orreries ‘Newtonian’? A consideration of the material, textualand pictorial evidence. In L. C. Taub, & F. Willmoth (Eds.), The Whipple Museumof the History of Science: Instruments and interpretations (pp. 403–426).Cambridge: Whipple Museum of the History of Science.

Te Heesen, A. (2002). The world in a box: The story of an eighteenth-century pictureencyclopedia (A. M. Hentschel, Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.(First published 1996)

‘Tom Telescope’. (1761). The Newtonian system of philosophy. London: J. Newbery.

K. Taylor / Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 40 (2009) 360–371 371

Turner, G. L’E. (1987). Presidential address: Scientific toys. British Journal for theHistory of Science, 20, 377–398.

Vickery, A. (1998). The gentleman’s daughter: Women’s lives in Georgian England. NewHaven: Yale University Press.

Wakefield, P. (1800). Letter to the Editor. Monthly Magazine, November.

Walters, A. N. (1997). Conversation pieces: Science and politeness in eighteenth-century England. History of Science, 35, 121–154.

Whitehouse, F. R. B. (1971). Table games of Georgian and Victorian days (2nd ed.).Royston: Priory Press. (First published 1951)