Different Experimental Lives: Michael Faraday and William Sturgeon

Thompson S. P. , Michael Faraday: His life and work (London, 1898), 102.

There are numerous nineteenth-century biographies of Faraday. The best known are Thompson, op. cit (ref. 1); Jones H. Bence , The life and letters of Faraday (2 vols, London, 1870); Tyndall J. , Faraday as a discoverer (London, 1868); and Gladstone J. H. , Michael Faraday (London, 1872). The most important twentieth-century biographies are Williams L. P. , Michael Faraday (London, 1965) and Cantor G. , Michael Faraday: Scientist and Sandemanian (London, 1991).

For ‘gentlemen of science’ see Cannon S. F. , Science in culture: The early Victorian period (New York, 1978); Morrell J. Thackray A. , Gentlemen of science: Early years of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (Oxford, 1981).

There are no book-length biographies of Sturgeon. Biographical details may be found in Joule J. P. , “A short account of the life and writings of the late Mr. William Sturgeon”, Memoirs of the Manchester Literary and Philosophical Society, xiv (1857), 53–83; Gee W. W. Haldane , “William Sturgeon”, The electrician, xxxv (1895), 632–5. More recently, Sturgeon has been discussed in R. Kargon, Science in Victorian Manchester: Enterprise and expertise (Manchester, 1977) and in Cardwell D. , James Joule (Manchester, 1989).

One of his papers was read to the Royal Society in 1836. It was however rejected for publication in the Transactions. See Sturgeon W. , “An experimental inquiry into the relative merits of magnetic electrical machines and voltaic batteries, as implements of philosophical research”, Proceedings of the Royal Society, iii (1836), 65–66.

For an account of some of the class-related codes and perceptions of speech and behaviour in Victorian England see Phillipps K. C. , Language and class in Victorian England (Oxford, 1984).

Whilst Faraday was initially employed at the Royal Institution as a chemist there can be no doubt that he regarded himself from the outset as a philosopher. See for example his correspondence with his friend Benjamin Abbott during the 1810s, in James F. A. J. L. (ed.), The correspondence of Michael Faraday (London, 1991), i, esp. pp. 32–38.

Morrell J. , “Individualism and the structure of British science in 1830”, Historical studies in the phyiscal sciences, iii (1972), 183–204; Rudwick M. , The great Devonian controversy (Chicago, 1985); Secord J. , Controversy in Victorian geology (Princeton, 1986); Shapin S. , “Nibbling at the teats of science: Edinburgh and the diffusion of sciences in the 1830s”, in Inkster I. Morrell J. (eds), Metropolis and province (London, 1983), 151–78.

For an account of the formation of the gentleman-philosopher see Shapin S. , ” ‘A scholar and a gentleman’: The problematic identity of the scientific practitioner in early modern England”, History of science, xxix (1991), 279–327.

Lawrence C. , “Incommunicable knowledge: Science, technology and the clinical art in Britain 1850–1914”, Journal of contemporary history, xx (1985), 503–20.

Faraday M. , “Historical sketch of electro-magnetism”, Annals of philosophy, ii (1821), 195–200, 274–90; iii (1822), 1078–1121; Faraday M. , “On some new electro-magnetical motions, and on the theory of magnetism”, Quarterly journal of science, xii (1821), 74–96. Reprinted by Faraday M. , Experimental researches in electricity (3 vols, London, 1839–55), ii, 127–47 (quotations from this version).

Quoted in Jones Bence , op. cit. (ref. 2), i, 340, from a letter from Faraday to Stodart, dated 8 October 1821.

This is also apparent from Wollaston's response. He made clear that the matter was one that did not affect him personally since it hinged on the issue of Faraday's own personal honour: Jones Bence , op. cit. (ref. 2), i, 344–5.

This is explicit in Henry Warburton to Faraday, 8 July 1823 and Faraday to Warburton, 29 August 1823, both in James (ed.), op. cit. (ref. 7), 322–3, 324–5.

Jones Bence , op. cit. (ref. 2), i, 374–80.

BM Add.MS. 37189, f.218: Duke of Somerset to Charles Babbage, 16 December 1835, quoted in M. Berman, Social change and scientific organization (London, 1978), 174.

Crosse C. , “Science and society in the fifties”, Temple Bar, xciii (1891), 33–51, pp. 36–37.

Quoted in Williams R. , Writing in society (London, 1983), 89–90.

For ‘black boxes’ see Latour B. , Science in action (Milton Keynes, 1987); Schaffer S. , “Glass works: Newton's prisms and the uses of experiment”, in Gooding D. Pinch T. Schaffer S. (eds), The uses of experiment (Cambridge, 1989), 67–104.

For the ‘core set’ see Collins H. M. , Changing order (London, 1985).

Forgan S. , “Faraday — From servant to savant: The institutional context”, in Gooding D. James F. A. J. L. (eds), Faraday rediscovered (London, 1985), 51–67.

For a similar example of the spatial dimension to an experiment's transparency see Schaffer , op. cit. (ref. 19).

Collins , op. cit. (ref. 20).

Gooding D. , “In Nature's school: Faraday as an experimentalist”, in Gooding James (eds), op. cit. (ref. 21), 105–35.

Michael Faraday to E. Becker, 25 October 1860, in Williams L. P. (ed.), The selected correspondence of Michael Faraday (2 vols, Cambridge, 1971), ii, 975.

Gooding , op. cit. (ref. 24).

Michael Faraday to Benjamin Abbott, 18 June 1813, quoted in Jones Bence , op. cit. (ref. 2), i, 77.

Gooding , op. cit. (ref. 24); Gooding D. , “Theory and observation: The experimental nexus”, International studies in the philosophy of science, iv (1990), 131–48; Gooding D. , Experiment and the making of meaning: Human agency in scientific observation and experiment (Dordrecht, 1990).

Faraday , “Electro-magnetical motions” (ref. 11).

Ibid., 129.

Ibid., 129.

Ibid., 131.

Barlow P. , “A curious electro-magnetic experiment”, Philosophical magazine, lix (1822), 241–2.

Sturgeon W. , “Electro-magnetical experiments”, Philosophical magazine, lxiii (1824), 95–100, p. 95.

Sturgeon , op. cit. (ref. 34), 98.

Sturgeon W. , “Electro- and thermo-magnetical experiments”, Philosophical magazine, lxiii (1824), 266–8; idem, “Description of a rotative thermo-magnetical experiment”, ibid., 269–71.

Sturgeon , “Thermo-magnetical experiment” (ref. 36), 271.

Sturgeon W. , “On electro-magnetism”, Philosophical magazine, lxiv (1824), 242–9.

Ibid., 243.

Compare with Galison P. Assmus A. , “Artificial clouds, real particles”, in Gooding Pinch Schaffer (eds), op cit. (ref. 19), 225–74.

Sturgeon , op. cit. (ref. 38), 246–7.

Sturgeon W. , “Account of an improved electro-magnetic apparatus”, Annals of philosophy, xii (1826), 357–61. Reprinted in W. Sturgeon, Scientific researches, experimental and theoretical in electricity, magnetism, galvanism, electromagnetism and electrochemistry (Bury, 1850), 103–12.

Sturgeon , op. cit. (ref. 42, 1850), 104.

Ibid., 105.

Gooding D. , “Final steps to the field theory”, Historical studies in the physical sciences, xi (1981), 231–75; Gooding D. , “Experiment and concept formation in electro-magnetic science in England in the 1820s”, History & technology, ii (1985), 151–76; Williams , op. cit. (ref. 2). I am not interested here in the question of whether or not Faraday's views were derived from Boscovitch. My point is that he did view force rather than matter as being the basic constituent of the Universe.

See Cantor , op. cit. (ref. 2), 152.

Whewell W. , Philosophy of the inductive sciences (2 vols, London, 1840), i, 335.

Fisch M. Schaffer S. (eds), William Whewell: A composite portrait (Oxford, 1991).

For audiences at the Royal Institution see Berman , op. cit. (ref. 16); Forgan , op. cit. (ref. 21). Their idealism is well expressed by the suggestion that Faraday's lectures were like “mind addressing mind” made by an auditor at the Royal Institution. See L[loyd] M. , Sunny memories, containing personal recollections of some celebrated characters (2 vols, London, 1879–80), i, 65.

Golinski J. , “Humphry Davy and the lever of experiment”, in Le Grand H. (ed.), Experimental inquiries (Dordrecht, 1990), 99–136.

Schaffer S. , “Genius in romantic natural philosophy”, in Cunningham A. Jardine N. (eds), Romanticism and the sciences (Cambridge, 1990), 82–98. The simultaneous emergence of disembodied genius and self-acting experimental instruments is discussed in Schaffer S. , “Self evidence” (unpublished paper, 1991).

[ Pollock J. ], “Michael Faraday”, St. Paul's magazine, vi (1870), 293–303, quoted in Gladstone, op. cit. (ref. 2), 50–51.

Jones Bence , op. cit. (ref. 2), ii, 451; Gladstone , op. cit. (ref. 2), 140. Bence Jones mentions that his teacher, Smart, personally attended Faraday's lectures to make suggestions as to their improvement.

Gladstone , op. cit. (ref. 2), 161–2.

Thompson , op. cit. (ref. 1), 97.

For the role of technicians see Shapin S. , “The house of experiment in seventeenth century England”, Isis, lxxix (1988), 373–404. For Newman see Ginn W. T. , “Philosophers and artisans: The relationship between men of science and instrument makers in London 1820–1860” (unpublished PhD, University of Kent at Canterbury, 1991), ch. 6.

Quoted from an unpublished lecture by Sturgeon in Joule , op. cit. (ref. 3), 78.

See above and Sturgeon , op. cit. (ref. 38).

Morus I. R. , “The politics of power: Reform and regulation in the work of William Robert Grove” (unpublished PhD, University of Cambridge, 1989), ch. 2; idem, “Currents from the underworld: Electricity and the technology of display in early Victorian England”, Isis, forthcoming.

Noad H. M. , A course of eight lectures on electricity, galvanism, magnetism, and electromagnetism (London, 1839), 380–1.

For a discussion of some of the cultural resonances of scholarly disengagement see Shapin S. , ” ‘The mind is its own place’: Science and solitude in seventeenth-century England”, Science in context, iv (1990), 191–218.

For an instructive account of the alarm caused by controversy between gentlemen see Secord , op. cit. (ref. 8), 231–3. For Faraday's refusal to engage in dispute see Cantor , op. cit. (ref. 2), 141. Faraday concurred with the common perception that controversy had no place in philosophical discourse. This is not to suggest that gentlemen did not as a matter of fact engage in controversy. The point is that such engagements were regarded as deviations from an ideal.

Martin Thomas (ed.), Faraday's diary (7 vols, London, 1932–36), ii, 330 (henceforward referred to as Diary); Faraday , Experimental researches (ref. 11), i, “Ninth Series”, 322.

Diary, 331: “It is I think evidently dependant [sic] on induction.” Note however that he continues “See the paper I have written to the Phil. Mag. Though the experiments were made on the day of the date given [15 October], the rough notes were not entered here until the 20th Octr. at Brighton”. It is possible therefore that the decision to treat the phenomenon as one of induction was not immediate. The passage is a salutary reminder of the retrospective nature of Faraday's Diary.

Faraday , Experimental researches (ref. 11), i, 324–8; Diary, 333–40.

Faraday , Experimental researches (ref. 11), i, 330–1.

For the notion of ‘surrogates’ see Collins , op. cit. (ref. 20), 100–6, 125–7.

Faraday , Experimental researches (ref. 11), i, 332.

Ibid., 334.

For the notion of ‘evidential context’ see Pinch T. , Confronting nature: The sociology of solarneutrino detection (Lancaster, Mass. and Dordrecht, 1987).

Quoted in Bence Jones, op. cit. (ref. 2), ii, 45n.

Sturgeon W. , “On the electric shock from a single pair of voltaic plates”, Annals of electricity, i (1836–37), 67–75. Henry's experiments were published in Henry J. , “Facts in reference to the sparks &c. from a long conductor uniting the poles of a galvanic battery”, Journal of the Franklin Institute, xv (1835), 169–70.

Sturgeon , op. cit. (ref. 72), 67.

Ibid., 70.

Ibid., 72.

Ibid., 74.

Ibid., 75.

Sturgeon W. , “Remarks on Mr. Faraday's ‘Ninth Series of Experimental Researches in Electricity,’ with experiments”, Annals of electricity, i (1836–37), 186–91, p. 186.

Ibid., 186.

Ibid., 187.

Ibid., 187.

Sturgeon W. , “On the relation by measure of common and voltaic electricity”, Annals of electricity, i (1836–37), 52–65. See Morus I. R. , “The sociology of sparks: An episode in the history and meaning of electricity”, Social studies of science, xviii (1988), 387–417.

For ‘social epistemology’ see Fuller S. , Social epistemology (Bloomington and Indianapolis, 1988).

Sturgeon W. , “An experimental investigation of the laws which govern the production of electric shocks &c. from a single voltaic pair”, Annals of electricity, i (1836–37), 192–8.

Ibid., 195.

Ibid., 196.

Ibid., 196.

Ibid., 198.

For another example of the relationship between audience and the aims of experimentation see Biagioli M. , “Galileo's system of patronage”, History of science, xxviii (1990), 1–62.

For an instructive account of the strategic nature of public and private see Iliffe R. C. , “In the warehouse: Privacy, property and priority in the early Royal Society”, History of science, forthcoming.