Rijksmuseum Boerhaave is a museum of the history of science and medicine, based in Leiden, Netherlands. The museum hosts a collection of historical scientific instruments from all disciplines, but mainly from medicine, physics, and astronomy.The museum is located in a building that was originally a convent in central Leiden. It includes a reconstructed traditional anatomical theatre. It also has many galleries that include the apparatus with which Heike Kamerlingh Onnes first liquefied helium (in Leiden), the electromagnet equipment used by Wander Johannes de Haas (a Leiden physicist) for his low-temperature research, and an example of the Leiden jar, among many other objects in the extensive collection.The museum is named after Herman Boerhaave, a Dutch physician and botanist who was famous in Europe for his teaching at Leiden and lived to a great age, receiving brilliant students from all over Europe, including Peter the Great, Voltaire and Linnaeus.
This paper describes a series of experimental set-ups in Rijksmuseum Boerhaave, the Dutch National Science Museum in Leiden, dedicated to probing the affects of scientific objects. These set-ups are part of an interdisciplinary research project centring around the issue of how to present and engage with immaterial or complex science technologies. This research combines two fields of expertise: curatorial practice in a science museum and scholarship in dramaturgy and scenography. It probes the potential of affect, understood as the capacity to affect and to be affected, while finding inspiration in new materialist theory. By using dialogue next to discursive argumentation, the paper discusses some questions and issues that were raised by these experimental set-ups and proposes that a focus on affect and materiality – thinginess, in brief – can inspire the collection and presentation of scientific objects. Attending to thinginess can expand the curatorial agenda and asks for scenographic strategies to support this.
The Dutch Republic around 1600 was a laboratory of the Scientific Revolution of the seventeenth century. Here conditions were favourable for the development of new ways of knowing nature and the natural philosopher Isaac Beeckman, who was born in Middelburg in 1588, was a seminal figure in this context. He laid the groundwork for the strictly mechanical philosophy that is at the heart of the new science. Descartes and others could build on what they learned, directly or indirectly, from Beeckman. As previous studies have mainly dealt with the scientific content of Beeckman’s thinking, this volume also explores the wider social, scientific and cultural context of his work. Beeckman was both a craftsman and a scholar and fruitfully combined artisanal ways of knowing with international scholarly traditions. Beeckman’s extensive private notebook offers a unique perspective on the cultures of knowledge that emerged in this crucial period in intellectual history.
The technique of neutron tomography has, after 350 years, enabled a first look inside the iconic single-lens microscopes of Antoni van Leeuwenhoek. Van Leeuwenhoek's 17th-century discovery of "animalcules" marks the birth of microbiology. His skillfully self-produced microscope lenses remained unsurpassed for over 150 years. Neutron tomography now enabled us to reveal the lens types Van Leeuwenhoek used. We argue that Van Leeuwenhoek's instruments incorporate some innovations that testify to an awareness of concurrent developments. In particular, our analysis shows that for making his best-performing microscopes, Van Leeuwenhoek deployed a lens-making procedure popularized in 1678 by Robert Hooke. This is notable, as Hooke always wanted to find the secret of Van Leeuwenhoek's lenses, but never managed to do so. Therefore, Van Leeuwenhoek was far from the isolated scholar he is often claimed to be; rather, his secrecy about his lenses was motivated by an attempt to conceal his indebtedness to Hooke.
This paper examines the role of book reviews in the discipline of the history of science by comparing their appearance in two periodicals, Isis, the flagship journal of the discipline that was founded in 1913, and the Journal for the History of Astronomy, founded in 1970 to serve a newly emerging, specialized subfield within the broader discipline. Our analysis of the reviews published in selected slices of time finds differing norms and reviewing practices within the two journals. Despite important changes during the past century in the conceptualization of the history of science and its research methods, reviewing practices in Isis remained remarkably consistent over time, with reviewers generally defending a fixed set of norms for “good” scholarship. More change appears in reviews of the Journal for the History of Astronomy, as its audience shifted from a mix of the laity, working astronomers, and historians to a specialized group of professional historians of astronomy. Scholarly norms, reflected in the reviews, shifted with these changes in readership. We conclude that book reviews offer rich sources for analyzing the evolution of scholarly disciplines and norms.
