FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4385540963> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4385540963 endingPage "891" @default.
• W4385540963 startingPage "890" @default.
• W4385540963 abstract "890 Book Reviews TECHNOLOGY AND < i I i I RlJames Lick’s Monument: The Saga of Captain Richard Floyd and the Building of the Lick Observatory. By Helen Wright. New York: Cambridge Uni­ versity Press, 1987. Pp. xvi + 231; illustrations, notes, index. $32.50. A Man Who Loved the Stars: The Autobiography ofJohn A. Brashear. By John A. Brashear. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1988. Pp. xxv+ 190; illustrations, appendix. $19.95 (cloth); $9.95 (paper). Richard Floyd (1843 —90), president of the Lick Trust, was respon­ sible for the construction of the Lick Observatory and the selection, fabrication, and erection of its principal scientific instruments. John A. Brashear (1840— 1920) became one of America’s leading producers of optical instrumentation for research in astronomy and physics. The lives of both men embody striking parallels. They started out poor: Brashear began life as a mill hand in Pittsburgh, and Floyd arrived in San Francisco after the Civil War, a penniless veteran who had fought for the Confederacy. Through hard work, native ability, and no small amount of luck, each rose to prominence in the late-19th-century world of science and technology. Their Horatio Alger—like careers were marked by the intervention of powerful patrons. Floyd was befriended by James Lick who, in time, made him president of the trust that was to dispose of the old man’s wealth. Brashear attracted the attention of pioneer astrophysicist Samuel P. Langley at the Allegheny Observatory and through him gained entry into the world of Pittsburgh’s business elite. The Thaws, Mellons, and Carnegies provided Brashear with encouragement and financial support, mak­ ing him a part of their philanthropic and social worlds. He also moved easily in the corridors of elite science, counting as close friends Henry A. Rowland of the Johns Hopkins University and George Ellery Hale of the University of Chicago. What is frustrating about these two books is that they never move beyond the level of descriptive narrative. For readers of Technology and Culture, the salient questions remain unasked. How did Floyd make the myriad technical and engineering decisions connected with the construction of the Lick Observatory and how did he choose between competing forms of instrumentation? We need to know much more about the construction of machines, instruments, and buildings on Mt. Hamilton. The Mary Shane archives of the Lick Observatory offer rich rewards for scholars who wish to move beyond narrative into the analytical history of the optical and mechanical technologies connected with the construction of this great research establishment. While there apparently are no Brashear papers (there was once an important collection), portions of the story can be reconstructed from a wide variety of other sources, for example, the G. E. Hale papers, both on microfilm and at Williams Bay. How did Brashear go about creating the first really modern instrument-making establishment in the United States? His operation was a far cry from the cut-and-paste tradition of the Alvan Clark Erm in Boston. Brashear used scientific TECHNOLOGY AND CULTURE Book Reviews 891 consultants to calculate the figure of lenses and was supported by the patronage of Pittsburgh steelmen whose largess allowed him to construct a well-equipped, spacious optical shop. It is Brashear, the optical engineer, rather than Floyd, the admin­ istrator, who most engages our attention, but readers must be warned of several pitfalls. First, the introduction to the new printing of the 1924 edition of Brashear’s autobiography is by a scientist who is frequently insensitive to problems concerning both presentation of self and the cultural context in which historical actors find themselves. Scientists who turn to history often fail to comprehend that the past is really different from the present and so view history with amaze­ ment or exhibit misplaced skepticism toward the past. Use the introduction with care, if at all. Second, Brashear presents himself through the myths and symbols of late Victorian culture. He achieved considerable social mobility, moving from the ranks of greasy mill hands to the drawing rooms of America’s elite scientists and industrial leaders. He uses a number of symbolic and mythic devices to explain and justify mobility. These devices must not be taken literally. Beyond this, there is the issue of Thaw’s support for Brashear’s company. Did Brashear exist only because of Thaw’s patronage? Could he never make a profit and become self-sustaining? As told here and generally accepted by scholars, the answer is that Brashear existed only because his operation was underwritten by Thaw. But I am not con­ vinced. This thesis must be demonstrated using archival material. Until that time I will continue to suspect that the story is merely a symbolic device used by Brashear to secure his ambivalent social and psycholog­ ical location in both industrial Pittsburgh, with its emphasis on material wealth, and the domain of pure science, where (in that day, at least) researchers did not think of personal gain. Brashear moved between these two worlds with their potentially conflicting values and may have devised this myth to protect his identity. For those interested in cultural history, the matter is worth investigating. In summary, these volumes are disappointing. Floyd presents an interesting case study in the interplay of executive and practical engineering skills, butJames Lick’s Monument skates across the surface of history, using the narrative to avoid the tough (and interesting) questions associated with explaining the past. Brashear’s autobiogra­ phy is disappointing for different reasons. Historians of technology and its cultural context will find a rich harvest examining Brashear—he presents tantalizing glimpses into a world of science and technology of late Victorian America—but his life story is deliberately presented in mythic form. John Lankford Dr. Lankford, of the University of Missouri—Columbia, specializes in the social history of modern science. He is working on a history of the American astronomical community from 1859 to 1940. ..." @default.
• W4385540963 created "2023-08-04" @default.
• W4385540963 creator A5069970201 @default.
• W4385540963 date "1990-10-01" @default.
• W4385540963 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W4385540963 title "James Lick’s Monument: The Saga of Captain Richard Floyd and the Building of the Lick Observatory by Helen Wright, and: A Man Who Loved the Stars: The Autobiography of John A. Brashear by John A. Brashear (review)" @default.
• W4385540963 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/tech.1990.a901673" @default.
• W4385540963 hasPublicationYear "1990" @default.
• W4385540963 type Work @default.
• W4385540963 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W4385540963 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4385540963 hasAuthorship W4385540963A5069970201 @default.
• W4385540963 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W4385540963 hasConcept C142362112 @default.
• W4385540963 hasConcept C166957645 @default.
• W4385540963 hasConcept C204321447 @default.
• W4385540963 hasConcept C2776608531 @default.
• W4385540963 hasConcept C2777667586 @default.
• W4385540963 hasConcept C2778086194 @default.
• W4385540963 hasConcept C2779919027 @default.
• W4385540963 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W4385540963 hasConcept C44870925 @default.
• W4385540963 hasConcept C520712124 @default.
• W4385540963 hasConcept C52119013 @default.
• W4385540963 hasConcept C74916050 @default.
• W4385540963 hasConcept C81631423 @default.
• W4385540963 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W4385540963 hasConceptScore W4385540963C121332964 @default.
• W4385540963 hasConceptScore W4385540963C142362112 @default.
• W4385540963 hasConceptScore W4385540963C166957645 @default.
• W4385540963 hasConceptScore W4385540963C204321447 @default.
• W4385540963 hasConceptScore W4385540963C2776608531 @default.
• W4385540963 hasConceptScore W4385540963C2777667586 @default.
• W4385540963 hasConceptScore W4385540963C2778086194 @default.
• W4385540963 hasConceptScore W4385540963C2779919027 @default.
• W4385540963 hasConceptScore W4385540963C41008148 @default.
• W4385540963 hasConceptScore W4385540963C44870925 @default.
• W4385540963 hasConceptScore W4385540963C520712124 @default.
• W4385540963 hasConceptScore W4385540963C52119013 @default.
• W4385540963 hasConceptScore W4385540963C74916050 @default.
• W4385540963 hasConceptScore W4385540963C81631423 @default.
• W4385540963 hasConceptScore W4385540963C95457728 @default.
• W4385540963 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W4385540963 hasLocation W43855409631 @default.
• W4385540963 hasOpenAccess W4385540963 @default.
• W4385540963 hasPrimaryLocation W43855409631 @default.
• W4385540963 hasRelatedWork W1995683324 @default.
• W4385540963 hasRelatedWork W2034749717 @default.
• W4385540963 hasRelatedWork W2586387654 @default.
• W4385540963 hasRelatedWork W2606626369 @default.
• W4385540963 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W4385540963 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W4385540963 hasRelatedWork W31463941 @default.
• W4385540963 hasRelatedWork W3149443189 @default.
• W4385540963 hasRelatedWork W946898552 @default.
• W4385540963 hasRelatedWork W2893068826 @default.
• W4385540963 hasVolume "31" @default.
• W4385540963 isParatext "false" @default.
• W4385540963 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W4385540963 workType "article" @default.