Philip Carpenter and the convergence of science and

Science Museum Group Journal

Philip Carpenter and the convergence of science andentertainment in the early-nineteenth century instrument tradeJourna l ISSN numbe r: 2054-5770

Thi s a rti cl e wa s wri tte n by Phi l l i p Robe rts

04-04-2017 Ci te a s 10.15180; 170707 Re s e a rch

Phi l i p Ca rpe nte r a nd the conve rge nce of s ci e nce a nd e nte rta i nme nt i n the e a rl y-ni ne te e nth ce ntury i ns trume nt tra de

Publ i s he d i n Spri ng 2017, Sound a nd Vi s i on

Arti cl e DOI: http://dx.doi .org/10.15180/170707

Abstract

This article will consider the alignment of scientific and media practice at the beginning of the nineteenth century. Over several

decades after 1817 certain instrument makers began to specialise in the domestic entertainment market, transferring skills from

optical instrument manufacture to the design of fashionable novelty devices. The instrument trade was expanding into a new

middle-class market to exploit an increasing popular trade in optical novelties, exemplified by the 1817 Kaleidoscope craze and new

interest among the middle classes for microscopes, telescopes, and magic lanterns. This paper will address this shift towards more

popular uses of scientific instruments and optical toys. In particular it will address the involvement of the Birmingham and London

optician Philip Carpenter in three popular media formats of the 1810s and 1820s — the 1817 patent Kaleidoscope, 1821 Improved

Phantasmagoria Lantern and 1827 Microcosm.

Compone nt DOI: http://dx.doi .org/10.15180/170707/001

Keywords

Kaleidoscope, magic lantern, solar microscope, Phi l ip Carpenter, scienti fic instrument makers , nineteenth century, Carpenter &

Westley, retai l , exhibition, entertainment, optical instruments

Introduction

This article uses a detai led case study to explore how the interaction between science and entertainment can emerge through

analys is of the cultural history of speci fic artisans and artefacts . Phi l ip Carpenter was one of many instrument makers that

moved to capture a growing market for domestic instruments , sel l ing microscopes, telescopes, looking-glasses and a range of

devices for exhibiting entertaining spectacles . This paper wi l l address three phases of Carpenter’s career: his involvement in the

production of David Brewster’s 1817 Kaleidoscope; his 1821 Improved Phantasmagoria Lantern; and the 1827 Microcosm

exhibition. For Carpenter, as with other instrument makers at the beginning of the nineteenth century, there was no clear

separation between science and entertainment. The legacy of this discipl inary crossover would be the continued expansion of

popular entertainments over the century. By the end of the nineteenth century optical instruments were among the most popular

forms of entertainment in the home and for publ ic exhibition. The scienti fic instrument trade was one s igni ficant precursor of

this burgeoning market for projected spectacles and optical marvels . I wi l l show that there is no distinction between scienti fic

and entertainment instruments in Carpenter’s manufacturing and retai l practice. His principle a im was to make money, so he

uti l i sed his ski l l s as an optician to engage in whatever markets presented themselves. Carpenter sold microscopes as optical

novelties and magic lanterns as educational devices . There was a lways some s l ippage between categories and he oriented

much of his practice to take advantage of this . Engagement in multiple entertainment, experimental and profess ional markets

was typical of instrument makers at this time, but i t i s rare to see this in such detai l as I am to present here. Carpenter’s case

offers a valuable contribution to our understanding of the instrument and media trades. Through a detai led study of his l i fe and

work in the 1810s and 1820s, I wi l l show what practice he employs and what networks he exploits to navigate the changing

economic landscape of the early-nineteenth century.

Carpenter began working as a manufacturing optician in Birmingham in 1808, specia l is ing in spectacles and microscopes,

before becoming manufacturer of Brewster’s Patent Kaleidoscope in 1817. This was wi ldly popular and became the fi rst

consumer media craze. Carpenter opened a retai l shop in Birmingham around 1819 and released the Improved Phantasmagoria

Lantern in 1821. This was one of the key consumer lanterns that helped support the expansion of lantern retai l in the 1820s and

1830s. In 1826 he opened another at 24 Regent Street in Westminster, where he establ ished an exhibition of microscopic views

cal led the Microcosm. This became a popular addition to the range of attractions around Regent Street and made Carpenter

quite famous. He died in 1833, to be succeeded by his s ister Mary. In 1837, after shedding the Birmingham wing of the bus iness

to earl ier foreman Robert Field, Mary took Wi l l iam Westley into partnership. Westley had been apprenticed to Carpenter from

1821 and became foreman after Field left to pursue bus iness on his own. With the formal isation of their partnership, the

Carpenter bus iness became Carpenter & Westley, going on to become one of the most s igni ficant consumer media producers of

the century.

Carpenter was among the most important drivers of the expansion of consumer media technologies in the 1810s and 1820s,

where scienti fic instrument makers began to special ise in the popular and domestic markets , eventual ly shedding their

pos itions as scienti fic practi tioners entirely, to become manufacturers of optical media instruments . With the 1817

Kaleidoscope Phi l ip Carpenter and David Brewster succeeded in creating a craze for a new novelty instrument. The

Kaleidoscope was retai led as a must-have device and sold at a faster rate than most other instruments . The newness of the

Kaleidoscope became something to exploit, and this worked to such an extent that contemporary sources ta lk of a ‘mania’ for

the device (Correia, 2016, p 5; ‘Pol i tical Periscope’, 1818, p 503). Carpenter later repeated this approach to retai l with the

Improved Phantasmagoria Lantern and the solar microscope. Both took longstanding instruments and presented them as

novelties to be consumed anew. Such was the success of Carpenter’s marketing that he has been credited with invention or

innovation for aspects of both instruments (Mannoni , 2000, pp 289–290; Beattie, 2013, p 6; Heard, 2006, p 197; ‘Spiri t of

Discovery’, 1836, p 40; Timmins, 1866, p 534) despite having added only minor improvements . A description of the development

and s igni ficance of the Kaleidoscope, the Phantasmagoria Lantern, and the Microcosm exhibition is given below.

The instrument makers

Throughout the eighteenth century scienti fic instrument makers served several distinct markets : they produced precis ion

instruments for scientists and experimental insti tutions; surveying instruments for bui lding infrastructure and transport

networks; navigational instruments for maritime transport and overseas trade; tradesmen’s tools for measuring or dividing;

and luxury domestic instruments that conferred cultural prestige on curious amateurs (Morrison-Low, 2007, pp 249–283;

Bedini , 1964, pp 3–13; Sorenson, 1995, p 264). After several hundred years of development, the instrument trade was extremely

divers i fied. Few manufacturers produced only experimental instruments for scientists . This range of di fferent markets was

exploited to sustain cons istent profi ts through separate income streams.

It was natural that ski l led lens-grinders , as the optical instrument makers were, would turn their hand to any instrument that

could be assembled us ing their ski l l -set, regardless of i ts field or appl ication. If we consult the trade cards for di fferent

manufacturers we see a plethora of di fferent instruments and devices . John Cuff of Fleet Street (see Figure 1) advertises reading

glasses , refracting and reflecting telescopes, several di fferent microscopes, barometers , thermometers and speaking trumpets .

John Bennet of Crown Court (see Figure 2) advertises microscopes, telescopes, rules , globes, sundials , theodol i tes and

compasses, among a jumble of other instruments . Nathaniel Hi l l of Chancery Lane (see Figure 3) advertises a s imi lar range of

profess ional and analytical instruments and announces that he ‘makes and sel ls a l l sorts of mathematical instruments in

s i lver, ivory and wood, very curious and true graduated for sea or land, with books for their use and the best black-lead

penci ls ’. Many of the i tems on offer would have been bought in for retai l , but each maker would also have maximised their own

manufacturing ski l l s to produce al l kinds of di fferent instruments .

Figure 1

© Phi l l ip Roberts

Trade card for John Cuff, 1731–1770

DOI: http://dx.doi .org/10.15180/170707/008

Figure 2

© Science Museum/Science & Society Picture Library

Trade card for John Bennet, 1740


Figure 3


Trade card for Nathaniel Hi l l , Globe Maker & Engraver


But these markets were not stable. At di fferent times the relative importance of each would rise and fa l l and manufacturers

would react through special isation. Occas ional ly, a large precis ion contract would become avai lable and several makers

would scramble to cla im the work. John Bird produced a large set of astronomical instruments for the Radcl i ffe Observatory in

1771 (Morrison-Low, 2007, p 137), and Troughton and Simms held a long relationship with the Royal Observatory throughout

the nineteenth century, supplying precis ion equipment, making repairs and developing new instruments (McConnel , 1992, p 39).

These periodic associations were important, but quite rare. Only the best-regarded makers could secure a prestigious contract

with a profess ional scienti fic insti tution. Towards the end of the century profess ional navigational and measuring instruments

became increas ingly important with the expansion of trade and manufacture in the industria l revolution (Morrison-Low, 2007,

pp 258–267; Bryden, 1972, pp 10–15). Simi larly, an expanding market for luxury goods encouraged instrument makers to sel l

increas ing numbers of off-the-shel f objects , intended for novelty rather than experimental use (Morrison-Low, 2007, pp 271–

274). By the turn of the nineteenth century relatively few instruments were being sold to scientists . The majori ty of consumers

were part of these other markets .

In the later years of the eighteenth century the market for consumer instruments was rapidly expanding. Scienti fic instruments

were increas ingly sold as consumer objects , as Berg suggests , ‘ornaments of consumption as much as they were tools of

engineering’ (1998, p 154). Scholars have described this age of expanding luxury retai l as a consumer revolution (Berg, 2004;

2005). This continues into the nineteenth century. Consumption increased because of greater wealth ci rculation, but this i s only

secondari ly related to the industria l revolution. As Dorothy Davis identi fies , retai l was driven by industria l manufacture only

from the second hal f of the nineteenth century (1966, p 252). In the early years consumer retai l remained much as i t had in the

eighteenth century – s lowly expanding due to greater affluence in the middle classes , but mostly unaffected by industria l

production. Instrument manufacture, even for the larger domestic market, remained largely artisanal in organisation. There was

no industria l production of instruments , but the trade became gradual ly more integrated into the workshop economy that had

driven the early expansion in fancy goods. The fi rst popular media devices took advantage of a longstanding network of

manufacturing workshops to efficiently produce larger volumes of popular instruments . This i s one reason for part of the

trade’s successful shi ft into popular optics ; even before true mass-production factory methods were appl ied.

Earl ier makers had long produced instruments for ostens ibly entertainment purposes; both the Hi l l and Bennett trade cards

include a magic lantern and camera obscura among their wares, whi le the Cuff trade card advertises: ‘THE CAMERA OBSCURA for

exhibiting Prospects in their natural Proportions and Colours , together with the Motions of l iving subjects : MAGIC LANTHORNS;

Convex and Concave SPECULUMS or Looking Glasses , MULTIPLYING GLASSES, […] and many other curios i ties .’ There had always

been instruments sold for novelty consumption. What changed in the nineteenth century was the approach to retai l ing

curios i ties .


The Kaleidoscope

Optical and phi losophical toys were fi rst integrated into the practice of the instrument maker and popular scientist as a means

of demonstrating particular scienti fic principles . These toys may have been scaled-down vers ions of earl ier scienti fic

instruments , or newly invented devices that could be sold as intel lectual ly stimulating. There was much popular interest in

science in the early nineteenth century, as shown by the many books intended to teach principles in entertaining or access ible

ways. J R Paris ’s Philosophy in Sport Made Science in Ernest (1831) taught scienti fic theory through the medium of chi ldren’s toys

and games, and is intended as a useful manual to show tutors how to address di fferent aspects of scienti fic education.

Simi larly, David Brewster’s A Treatise on Optics (1833 [1831]) categorises di fferent optical principles and suggests how these

are exempl i fied by particular optical instruments .

The optical toys themselves were also intended for a popular education market. There are many treatises and advertisements

that praise the intel lectual worth of these smal l mechanical trinkets . Optical toys were exci ting because of their dual status as

sources of spectacle and demonstrations of optics . Drawing on an older conception of science as akin to wonderment (Daston

and Park, 2001), these toys presented magical spectacles that could shock or del ight; but through the supporting l i terature and

surrounding marketing discourse, this magic was explained, so that the toy became an indicator of attained scienti fic

knowledge. These instruments were both amusement and instruction combined (these two terms continual ly crop up in

l i terature and adverts), and i t i s this dupl ici ty that best explains how the early media entertainments of the nineteenth century

fi rst emerged from the instrument makers ’ workshops. As we wi l l see with the kaleidoscope, retai lers exploited the

respectabi l i ty of scienti fic education to justi fy games and spectacles (by uti l i s ing optical principles to explain them), but, at the

same time, they uti l i sed the popular appeal of spectacle (and tricks , jokes, games, etc.) to propel scienti fic instruments into a

popular market.

The Kaleidoscope was fi rst released as a joint venture between Brewster and Carpenter in 1817. The early models were much the

same as the toy remains today; cons isting of a cyl indrical tube fi tted with incl ined mirrors to reflect shapes into infini te

patterns. Brewster cla ims to have invented the Kaleidoscope in 1814, having come across the idea of playing with incl ined

reflections during his research on polarisation (1819, p 1), a l though the kaleidoscopic principle had been known s ince at least

1710 (Hecht, 1993, pp 72–73). He was awarded a patent for the Kaleidoscope in 1817 and went into production soon after, with

Carpenter acting as sole maker.

Early kaleidoscopes are a l l s imi lar in des ign, but may have two functions. As per our usual expectations of the instrument, a

kaleidoscope could be fi tted with an object cel l (fi l led with coloured stones and fragments) to produce kaleidoscopic patterns;

or i t could be fi tted with a lens to view external objects , reflected into kaleidoscopic patterns. They were sold with and without

object cel ls . In A Treatise on the Kaleidoscope Brewster explains how he had fi rst des igned a vers ion with permanently fixed

coloured glasses , which was pleas ing but produced no sustained interest. He added means of rotating and interchanging the

objects , which gave variabi l i ty to the patterns, and, later, a draw tube and convex lens to a l low viewing of external objects ; so

that, as Brewster says , ‘the images of objects , of a l l magnitudes and at a l l distances, might be distinctly formed at the end of the

reflectors , and introduced into the pictures created by the instrument in the same manner as i f they had been reduced in s ize

and placed in the true pos ition of symmetry’ (1819, p 6). These vers ions were cal led ‘telescopic kaleidoscopes’, and are not

commonly known today. They fol low the same principle as a pocket draw-telescope, with lens and s l iding mechanism to focus

objects , but fi tted with incl ined mirrors in the manner of the kaleidoscope.

Carpenter seems to have ini tia l ly sold both vers ions, each fi tted with two mirrors . Brewster cal ls these two-mirror vers ions

‘s imple kaleidoscopes’ (1819, p 56). The National Science and Media Museum has an early telescopic kaleidoscope with a

stamp identi fying Carpenter as sole maker (see Figure 4). Assuming that Carpenter did not continue marketing himself as sole

maker of the kaleidoscope after 1818 (when Brewster granted manufacturing rights to other makers), this means that this

example is from 1817 or 1818, and is one of the original vers ions of the instrument. The kaleidoscope is made from two brass

tubes (one with enamel glazing) with additional brass tube fixings and stamped end-pieces. The internal mirrors are

permanently fixed with glue and wood, and the whole instrument is inserted into a cardboard tube. A smal l convex lens

(miss ing in this example) would have also fi tted into one of the brass fixings and s l id onto the end of the instrument. This i s an

extremely s imple and efficient des ign, and one of the reasons for the success of the instrument and i ts subsequent impact on

optical media retai l . I wi l l return to this point shortly.

Figure 4


Brewster’s Patent Telescopic Kaleidoscope by Phi l ip Carpenter, in cardboard tube,

1817. Left: Kaleidoscope with cardboard case. Middle/right: Brass ends stamped

with maker’s mark


The standard kaleidoscope, with object cel ls , fol lows this des ign very closely, as we can see from an example in the Science

Museum (see Figure 5). This instrument bears a Carpenter & Westley stamp, indicating that i t i s from after 1837, when the late

Phi l ip Carpenter’s bus iness was renamed, having succeeded to his s ister Mary and foreman Wi l l iam Westley (Carpenter, 1878,

pp 7–8). It comes with a mahogany display box and various object cel ls , but i s otherwise s imi lar to the 1817 Kaleidoscope.

What is interesting here is that the instrument has been col lected into a tidy package for consumer retai l . The box is velvet l ined

and comes with a lock and key. The kaleidoscope i tsel f has been finished with s i lver plating. Al l of these touches are

superfluous to the functioning of the instrument, but serve to add prestige value to the overal l package. Brewster’s publ ished

writings on the kaleidoscope take great care to explain the scienti fic merits and practical appl ication of his invention, but the

instrument i tsel f screams of luxury consumption.

Figure 5


Brewster’s Patent Kaleidoscope by Carpenter & Westley, in mahogany box with

object cel ls , 1837–1860


It i s doubtful i f the kaleidoscope was ever much appreciated as a scienti fic device, or that most users would have tried to

understand the principles of i ts operation, as Brewster suggested they should do in his treatise. One commentator said that ‘no

invention, perhaps, ever exci ted more general attention among al l classes of people, than the Kaleidoscope’; but a lso that i t

‘serves more as a toy than to any serious purpose’ (‘The Most Important Inventions and Discoveries of our Times’, 1819, p 19).

Elsewhere, The Literary Panorama presents a curious gentleman captivated by his Kaleidoscope:

You see, s i r, that beauti ful s tar in the centre; that graceful red l ine down the middle which closely resembles the order of—

Then such mountains of gold and s i lver! there, s i r, hold i t in that direction, whi le I just turn the—O! how beauti ful ! what a

happy combination! a l l the hues of the rainbow! and pray look round the edges; what a del ightful series of—yes, s i r this i s

the true—the patent—the invaluable Kaleidoscope! (‘Pol i tical Periscope’, 1818, p 503)

Here, the instrument is not discussed in terms of i ts practical scienti fic uses , as in Brewster’s treatise, but as a source of

fleeting spectacle. The article goes on to uti l i se the kaleidoscope as an instrument of deception, reflecting the outs ide world as

i l lusory abstract beauty. As Erkki Huhtamo (2014) and Nicole Garrod Bush (2015) have both shown, there are many discurs ive

and l i terary articulations of kaleidoscopism that are concerned with the instrument’s beauty or deceptiveness , but very few

deal ing with i ts contribution to optical science. The Kaleidoscope’s populari ty was a result of i ts pleas ing spectacles ; i ts

scienti fic content was presented as a supplementary appeal to educational or practical value, so as to render i t respectable.

But this was no empty spectacle. As Huhtamo argues, the Kaleidoscope al lowed users to manipulate the concrete world and

explore perception in ways rarely poss ible before. This l ikely a lso contributed to popular consumption of the microscope and

telescope, which s imi larly played with the practice of vis ibi l i ty. That the Kaleidoscope was relatively cheap (for a middle-class

purchaser) and widely counterfeited (Morrison-Low, 2007, pp 224–225; Correia, 2016, pp 3–4) device contributed to i ts success ,

making i t the fi rst popular optical media instrument. It offered a new way of interacting with the world. As Helen Groth shows,

i ts spectacle presented a new form of visual transformation (2007).

Brewster cla ims that 200,000 Kaleidoscopes (both Patent Kaleidoscopes and counterfeit copies) were sold in three months

(1819, p 7). It i s imposs ible to veri fy this number, but the extens ive cri tical furore over the device (Bush 2015) does show that i t

was a great success . The Philosophical Magazine sa id the instrument was ‘now in the hands of a lmost every person’ (1818, p

376). By 1818, Carpenter could no longer meet production demands and several other manufacturers were granted permiss ion

to produce the device. An 1818 advert (see Figure 6) shows that Kaleidoscopes were now manufactured by seventeen instrument

makers including Carpenter, the Dol lands, W&S Jones, R B Bate and John Ruthven. The majori ty of these new manufacturers were

s ituated in London, but the contracting of manufacturers in Edinburgh, Liverpool and Bristol (and retaining Carpenter in

Birmingham) gives some indication of the instrument’s popular appeal across the country.

Figure 6


Advert for the Patent Kaleidoscopes, 1818



Industrial organisation

It i s not clear how Carpenter attained the Kaleidoscope production contract. Brewster is known to have had connections with a

number of s igni ficant instrument makers in Edinburgh and London (Taylor, 1966, p 357), but Carpenter was a Birmingham

optician. It i s most l ikely that he was accepted as manufacturer because of his integration into the Birmingham workshop

economy. Li ttle i s known of his pre-1817 manufacturing practice. We know that he was a practicing optician on Inge Street by

1808 and that he moved to a manufactory on Bath Row in 1813 (Roberts , 2016a, p 10). Several historians cla im that he was a

leading suppl ier of lenses and telescopes to the instrument trade (Talbot, 2006, p 17; Timmins, 1866, p 534; Morrison-Low,

2007, p 225; Davidson, 2011, p 13), but i t i s unclear how they know this . We gain some sense of the s ize of Carpenter’s

workshop from surviving documents . An 1813 leasehold document shows that he acquired 1,041 square feet of land for

bui lding (MS 3375/407007). This i s a reasonable s ized property, but as a later mortgage document shows, i t included a

dwel l ing house and outbui ldings , as wel l as the manufactory bui lding (MS 3375/407009). This means that Carpenter worked

from a relatively smal l workshop, large enough for lens grinding and assembly work, but certainly not for brass moulding or

metalwork. It a lso means that he worked as a wholesale optician and not yet as a retai ler himself. Carpenter did not acquire his

shop on New Street unti l at least 1819 (QS/76/3; Wrightson’s Directory, 1823, p 27). There is no way of knowing the extent of

Carpenter’s early manufacturing practice, but i t i s reasonable to expect that he was competent and reasonably successful

a lready, given that he was capable of attaining Brewster’s Kaleidoscope contract and that he produced enough Kaleidoscopes

to provoke a popular media craze (a l though not enough to continue as sole maker after 1818).

Examination shows that the Kaleidoscope was assembled from multiple seria l ly-produced parts . Given the volume of

Kaleidoscopes produced, this would have required an efficient production system in l ine with the usual Birmingham

subcontracting networks. In the early nineteenth century, Birmingham was one of the biggest manufacturing ci ties in the world.

It had not mechanised, as had key industries in the northwest of England, because i t had developed a highly-efficient network of

workshops that individual ly manufactured smal l i tems (such as buckles and buttons), individual parts (such as gun parts and

screws) and metals (principal ly tin, i ron and brass) (Hopkins , 1989, pp 60–61). This manufacturing economy functioned

through the putting-out system, where many di fferent workshops would participate in the production of parts , to be bought and

assembled elsewhere (Berg, 1991; 1993). The Birmingham trade was organised around individual workshops that each focused

on a few speci fic tasks and outputs . Berg describes this as ‘a workshop economy bui l t on special isation and the divis ion of

labour, on dispersed units concentrated in speci fic locations and on close networking among these units ’ (1993, pp 20–21).

Subcontracting was common, as i t was elsewhere, but without the drive towards increased capital and large, one-s i te

manufacture. The instrument trade was smal l in comparison with other industries . There were few appreciable benefi ts to be

had by mechanised production, or the production of industria l quanti ties of goods, because i t had already attainted a high

degree of efficiency through the use of hand-technologies and workshop organisation. There had previous ly been l i ttle need to

produce instruments in bulk, but the Kaleidoscope was a di fferent kind of enterprise.

Due to i ts broad non-special is t appeal the Kaleidoscope could cla im a larger market than was typical of other instruments . By

exploiting the rapidly expanding manufacturing networks of early-nineteenth century Birmingham, Carpenter could produce a

greater volume of instruments than previous ly poss ible. The instrument workshops themselves did not require an industria l

base, but through efficient subcontracting they could make use of industria l expansion in the metalwork and toy trades.

As an optician, Carpenter would surely have been a ski l led lens grinder, but i t i s doubtful that he would have had the means to

produce the tin cases , brass tubes and wooden boxes required for his instruments . Indeed, there would have been no need for

him to do so, as the local workshop economy could have provided ample tinsmiths , brass founders and box makers to supply

his own manufactory. Given Carpenter’s location, i t i s highly l ikely that his manufacturing practice was ful ly integrated into the

putting-out system. His own workshop would have most l ikely contributed only lenses, assembly and finishing (engraving,

pol ishing, painting, packing, etc.).

This explains the des ign of the early kaleidoscopes. Dismantl ing the Carpenter Kaleidoscope shows that i ts body is constructed

out of two brass tubes and ci rcular brass fixings . The brass tubes used for scienti fic instruments were made by drawing sheet

brass through a mould under cons iderable pressure (2006, pp 178–183; Barclay, 1993). The Kaleidoscope required two tubes of

s l ightly di fferent width (so one could s l ide into the other), plus several moulded and cut fixings to hold the tubes together. The

Commercial Directory for 1818 l i s ts 82 brass founders and 19 brass workers . John Benton of Livery Street specia l ised in making

‘plated and brass tubes of every description’ (Commercial Directory, 1818, p 62; Wrightson’s Directory, 1818, p 12), which strongly

suggests that he acted as a subcontractor to the instrument trade. He was part of an existing network of specia l is ts who could

have moulded and cut brass tubes for many of Carpenter’s instruments . With this in mind, i t i s l ikely that Carpenter would have

made use of this establ ished manufacturing network. The ends of the Kaleidoscope were pressed in the same process used for

button manufacture (Morrison-Low, 2007, p 225), which was a key part of the Birmingham toy trade. This was s imply achieved

by stamping a supple disk of brass with a maker’s mark. That these practices were embedded in the surrounding workshop

economy is indicated by Brewster’s own complaints that ‘tinmen and the glazers began to manufacture the detached parts of

[the Kaleidoscope], in order to evade the patent’ (Brewster, 1830, p 410). Profess ional artisans were capable of pirating the

instrument because i t was des igned with their existing ski l l s in mind.

The instrument would then require assembly and would need to be fi tted with mirrors and a lens (for the telescopic vers ion) or

object cel ls . This would l ikely have been done in Carpenter’s workshop as there were no cognate ski l l s avai lable in surrounding

workshops. A local Japanner would have appl ied an enamel covering to the outer tube and Carpenter would then have pol ished

and boxed the finished instrument (in a cardboard tube or wooden box bought in from elsewhere).

Al l of Carpenter’s instruments would l ikely have been integrated into the surrounding workshop economy in this way. Indeed,

this was true of most instrument makers . Even among the most gi fted manufacturers there is no need to dupl icate ski l l s

provided by other trades. The core ski l l s of the optician or mathematical instrument maker would also have required access to

certain key materia ls , thus integrating their workshop into a broader network of industria l practi tioners . What is interesting

about the Kaleidoscope is that i t was one of the fi rst instruments to exploit the expanding industria l base in the early-

nineteenth century. Through efficient des ign choices Carpenter could uti l i se the greater production capabi l i ties of the

Birmingham workshops to produce a far larger volume of instruments than was typical . The Kaleidoscope appealed to popular

interest in spectacle, so i t had a larger potentia l market than other instruments . That the manufacturing contract had to be

extended to s ixteen other makers only a year later shows that neither Brewster nor Carpenter ful ly anticipated just how

successful the Kaleidoscope craze could become.


The Improved Phantasmagoria Lantern

In 1821 Carpenter repeated this approach with the Improved Phantasmagoria Lantern (see Figure 7). This was a vers ion of the

magic lantern, an early s l ide projector that had been in use from 1659 and that had been a popular tool of travel l ing

entertainers throughout the eighteenth century (Rossel l , 2008, pp 102–140; Gonin, 2010). Because of i ts status as an i tinerant’s

tool and frivolous curios i ty, the lantern had a decidedly low reputation among the respectable classes by the turn of the

nineteenth century (Rossel l , 2008, pp 71–73). Carpenter would use the practices developed for the Kaleidoscope in new

approach to marketing magic lanterns. His bus iness focused on the affluent middle classes , so he would have to reorient the

relatively disreputable lantern so as to be acceptable to this cl ientele. Carpenter responded to this problem by sel l ing the

lantern as a des irable consumer object and by associating i t with education.

Figure 7


Improved Phantasmagoria Lantern by Phi l ip Carpenter, 1821–1833. Photographed at

the Museo Nazionale del Cinema, Turin


However, this impulse towards respectabi l i ty intersected with another key marketing drive to present the lantern (and his other

instruments) as exci ting and des irable objects . To appeal to the domestic market, instrument makers would have to inject their

instruments with a sense of pleasure. But they would have to tread a fine l ine between respectabi l i ty and wonderment.

Carpenter could not afford his lanterns to be perceived as dubious trick machines, nor his microscopes as boring academic

instruments . His instruments had to be reputable in order to fi t the tastes of his target demographic, so his marketing materia ls

emphasise their educational and scienti fic nature. But i t was equal ly important that the scienti fic world that they revealed,

through lantern s l ides or microscopic objects , was wondrous. We have already seen how the Kaleidoscope negotiated this

relationship.

Carpenter’s manufacturing methods were in l ine with the rest of the local apparatus trade, but he attained a more efficient and

cost-effective set of practices through key product and marketing innovations. Timmins says that Carpenter commenced

business ‘in a more systematic manner than had been known before’ (1866, p 534). We know that he was us ing the local

workshop economy to efficiently produce large numbers of lanterns and s l ides . Hecht argues that ‘Carpenter was the fi rst to go

about the production of lanterns and s l ides in a creative, bus iness-l ike fashion, finding solutions to problems that had been

dormant for years ’ (1993, p 77). As with the Kaleidoscope, other instrument makers fol lowed and produced Phantasmagoria

Lanterns of their own. The 1820s is the point where instrument makers started to understand the potentia l value of the

entertainment market and so we begin to see increased numbers of non-scienti fic media instruments . This kind of lantern was

one of the most popular instruments of the era.

The Improved Phantasmagoria Lantern was marketed as a consumer object with an establ ished name. Carpenter took the name

from the famous Phantasmagoria exhibitions, popular fi rst in Paris from 1792, and then in London around 1800 (Heard, 2006).

Carpenter adopted the name but not the format of his new lantern from the Phantasmagoria. As John Barnes says: ‘the name

“Phantasmagoria” which Carpenter gave to his magic lantern was real ly a misnomer, for the word s igni fies a mode of

projection rather than a type of lantern’ (1997, p 20). Carpenter’s lantern had a handle, so i t was poss ible to use i t as a

supplementary lantern in a Phantasmagoria show, moving i t around behind a screen to produce moving phantom projections –

the companion booklets include instructions for this (Carpenter and Wesley, 1850, pp 60–62) – but i t was not suitable to give

Phantasmagoria shows unaccompanied. This means, contrary to Carpenter’s sales pi tch, that the lantern was not ‘particularly

wel l adapted to the exhibition of the Phantasmagoria’ (1823, p 3), at least not in the establ ished large-scale multi -lantern

format exhibited by Robertson and others . Rather, i t could be used to present a smal ler scale (domestic or smal l exhibition)

Phantasmagoria show with a s ingle lantern (see Figure 8). Despite this , as Beattie argues, Carpenter placed the Phantasmagoria

Lantern in a historic context that made i t eas i ly recognisable (2013, p 7). He also added the additional term ‘Improved’, which

was commonly appended to microscopes by instrument makers .

Figure 8


Il lustration of the Improved Phantasmagoria Lantern in use, from A Companion to

the Improved Phantasmagoria Lantern by Carpenter & Westley, 1850


Carpenter’s lantern was made of tin, with a ta l l chimney that angled part way up, to protect i ts argand lamp from draft and to

stop l ight escaping. It had a (sometimes adjustable) lens tube, with double condenser and objective lenses, and a diaphragm to

prevent spherical aberration (Barnes, 1997, pp 19–20; Carpenter and Westley, 1850, pp 56–65). It was a s igni ficant

improvement on earl ier models because of the clari ty of images produced (due to the arrangement and qual i ty of i ts lenses), i ts

overal l s impl ici ty and cheapness of manufacture. The most common lanterns had tended to use a s ingle-lens bul ls eye

arrangement rather than the double-convex arrangement of Carpenter’s des ign (Carpenter and Wesley, 1850, p 56) and were

more di fficult to focus. The s impl ici ty of use meant that Carpenter could target a non-profess ional cl ientele and prompt

amateur users (teachers , preachers , gentlemen scientists , etc.) to take up the lantern as a useful way of presenting images in

publ ic.

Despite Carpenter’s own cla ims to invention, i t was the manufacturing and retai l s trategies he implemented that consti tuted his

most important innovations. The Lantern was integrated into the local workshop economy in the same way as the Kaleidoscope,

with the required tin, brass and glass manufacture being completed by di fferently ski l led profess ionals (Roberts , 2016b: 235–

329). Simi larly, the Copper-Plate Sl iders would have required profess ional woodworkers , artists and engravers . Catalogues and

price l i s ts show that the Lantern could be purchased as a package that included a set of s l ides , a companion booklet, argand

lamp, box and (in some instances) a projection microscope attachment; priced (in 1827) at £4 4s for equipment, plus 4s 6d for

s l ides and 1s for the accompanying booklet (£4 9s 6d for everything; Carpenter, 1827, p 26). A more expensive package provided

a microscope attachment and mounted object s l ides , ‘for exhibiting objects on a screen in the manner of a solar microscope

(for £2 8s; see Figure 9). These packages provided al l that was needed for an interested amateur to begin lecturing on natural

history (or tel l ing amusing stories about animals). As price l i s ts show, i t was poss ible to purchase some i tems separately

(al though individual s l ides were not sold apart from their sets , nor were argand lamps and microscope attachments separately

advertised), but i t i s clear from advertisements and catalogues that Carpenter conceived of them as a package. The Companion

to the Microcosm describes the Copper-Plate Sl iders as ‘exhibited by means of the Improved Magic Lantern’ (Carpenter, 1827, p

26); that i s , not by means of just any lantern, but only the Phi l ip Carpenter-branded Improved Phantasmagoria Lantern. That the

s l iders were al l of a standard s ize that fi t the accompanying lanterns, at the expense of the various ly-s ized contemporary s l ides ,

gives an indication of Carpenter’s approach to hardware and software exclus ivi ty.

Figure 9

© Cinémathèque Française

Improved Phantasmagoria Lantern by Carpenter & Westley, with microscope

attachment, 1837–1860


The range of s l ide subjects expanded quickly. In 1822 Carpenter was advertis ing ‘Natural History, &c.’ (certainly the Mammal ia

set, l ikely a lso the birds , amphibia, fi sh, insects and worms from Elements of Zoology, see Figures 10–16), ‘Ancient and Modern

Costumes, subjects in Natural History, Portrai ts of Kings and Queens of England, Microscopic Objects as they Appear in the

Solar Microscope, Publ ic Bui ldings and Views’ (see Figures 17–18), ‘Astronomical Diagrams’ (see Figures 19–20), and

‘Humorous Subjects ’ (Liverpool Mercury, 1822, p 327). With the exception of the microscopic objects , a l l were sti l l avai lable in

Carpenter and Westley’s 1850 catalogue, with the only other avai lable sets of Copper-Plate Sl iders being the scripture subjects

(see Figures 21–22) and botanical i l lustrations (1850, p 13). This shows that the range of subjects was establ ished very early.

The longevity of these sets a lso suggests their populari ty. Carpenter and Westley later introduced s imi lar companion guides to

some of the other sets , showing that the company maintained the integri ty of Phi l ip Carpenter’s hol istic approach after his

death, most l ikely due to i ts success .

Figure 10


Copper-Plate Sl ider by Carpenter & Westley, 1837–1860. Elements of Zoology

(Mammalia), porcupine, Brazi l ian porcupine, variegated and spotted cavies , and

beaver. Author’s col lection


Figure 11

© National Science and Media Museum/Science and Society Picture Library

Copper-Plate Sl ider by Carpenter & Westley, 1837—1860. Elements of Zoology

(Mammalia), Newfoundland dog, wolf, s triped hyena and Fenec


Figure 12


Copper-Plate Sl ider by Carpenter & Westley, 1837–1860. Elements of Zoology (birds),

condor, fulvous vulture, golden eagle and barn owl . Author’s col lection


Figure 13


Copper-Plate Sl ider by Carpenter & Westley, 1837–1860. Elements of Zoology (birds),

Patagonian penguin, red flamingo, rose-coloured spoonbi l l and agami heron.

Author’s col lection


Figure 14



(amphibia), snake tortoise, green turtle, horned frog and pipa. Author’s col lection


Figure 15



(amphibia), American guana, chameleon, s i ren and banded rattlesnake. Author’s

col lection


Figure 16



(worms), red coral , thick-armed gorgonia, cinnamon madrepore, madreporas ,

patel la and meandrites . Author’s col lection


Figure 17


Copper-Plate Sl ider by Carpenter & Westley, 1837–1860. Views of Public Buildings,

&c., View of St. Michael , Paris ian Mi l i tary Hospital and the Is land of Staffa


Figure 18


Copper-Plate Sl ider by Carpenter & Westley, 1837–1860. Views of Public Buildings,

&c., St Paul ’s Cathedral , Melrose Abbey and Southwark Bridge


Figure 19


Copper-Plate Sl ider by Carpenter & Westley, 1837–1860. Astronomical Diagrams,

Ecl ipse of the Sun (moveable)


Figure 20


Copper-Plate Sl ider by Carpenter & Westley, 1837–1860. Astronomical Diagrams,

Ecl ipse of the Moon (moveable)


Figure 21


Copper-Plate Sl ider by Carpenter & Westley, 1837–1860. Scripture Subjects, Adam

and Eve driven out of Paradise, Herodias with the head of John the Baptist, and

Christ brought to the temple


Figure 22


Copper-Plate Sl ider by Carpenter & Westley, 1837–1860. Scripture Subjects, The Fl ight

into Egypt, the Holy Fami ly and St. John, and Christ and the Woman of Samaria


The Copper-Plate Sl iders are made up of three or four transfer-printed and then hand-painted images on smal l glass disks ,

mounted in long wooden frames and secured with wire spring fixtures . These s l ides were the fi rst to be printed from a s ingle

matrix (in this case a copper engraving). Carpenter’s copper-plate transfer process was based on the ceramic transfer process

used by Sadler and Green from 1756 onwards (see Figure 23).

Figure 23

© Victoria and Albert Museum, London

Earthenware ti le with transfer-printed decoration by Sadler and Green, 1758–1761


This process did not a l low for ful l mass reproduction, as they sti l l required quite a lot of work from painters (Roberts , 2016, pp

322–325). As Barnes argues:

It could be wrong to suppose that the outl ine was merely ‘coloured’ in the manner of contemporary engraved prints ;

instead, the skeleton impress ion was completely transformed into a miniature painting which varied in qual i ty according

to the ski l l of the artist employed, and no two pictures are ever a l ike. (1984, p 9)

The transfer process was not a form of mass production, but i t did help Carpenter to standardise images by repeating each

outl ine and image subject. This meant that he could sel l a cons istent product that could be associated with his wider marketing

campaign.

The standardised images could be interpreted us ing the accompanying companions that gave information on each of the

subjects and advice on how to present them to an audience. Elements of Zoology (1823), the fi rst companion, s i tuates the s l ides

in an educational discourse and suggests that proper use of the s l ides requires commentary. The book’s introduction (1823, pp

5–6) s i tuates the s l ide set in a broad context of learning as a means of justi fying i ts use (and the value of natural history). It

provides information on each of the di fferent animals featured on the s l ides , organised into kingdoms, orders , genera and

species (according to Linnaeus’ class i fications). But the information provided betrays the non-scienti fic concerns of Carpenter’s

key consumers. It i s necessary for the Lantern to be seen as a reputable instrument, but i t must a lso be exci ting enough to draw

sales . As a result the underlying content of the s l ides and their interpretive readings is entertaining rather than educational .

Some extracts from the book should i l lustrate this :

Viverra Furo, or The Ferret. The ferret i s a native of Africa, but has been tamed in Europe, and is used for rabbit hunting,

and also for clearing places infested with rats . It i s very susceptible to cold, and is kept in a box provided with wool . So

great is i ts thirst for blood, that i s has been known to grasp at the throats of infants in the cradle, and suck them ti l l i t has

been completely gorged. (1823, p 35)

Vultut Gryphus, or The Condor. This , with the exception of the ostrich, i s the largest of birds , and i ts amazing s ize and

strength almost real ises the accounts of the Roc, in the Arabian Tales ; when ful l grown i t sometimes measures s ixteen feet

when the wings are extended, and is capable of snatching a smal l boy of ten years of age and upwards. The fulness of i ts

plumage is such as to res ist a bal l fi red at i t from a gun. (1823, pp 76–77)

Genus Testudo, or The Tortoise Tribe. This genus is divided into three assortments , land tortoises , river tortoises and sea

tortoises , or turtles . They feed upon worms, the marine ones on sea weeds; when tamed they eat a lmost anything. They are

long l ived; one kept in the gardens of Lambeth attained the age of 120 years , and they are so tenacious of l i fe, that one

l ived s ix months after i ts brain was taken out, walking about as before. Another l ived twenty-three days after i ts head was

cut off, and the head opened and closed i ts jaws for an hour after i ts separation from the body. (1823, p 97)

These readings are more concerned with sensational ism than accuracy, and i t i s easy to imagine the pleasure that they may

have given an audience confronted with images of the animals projected before them. We see that Carpenter has a clear

understanding of the requirements for an entertaining show and that he has moulded the discurs ive content of his Lantern sets

to meet them.

Carpenter’s bus iness decis ions were based on contextual strategies implemented to solve particular problems. His Improved

Phantasmagoria Lantern and Copper-Plate Sl iders package was marketed as such to stabi l i se a market for domestic media that

could be efficiently exploited. This i s his reason for focus ing on educational content and marketing his s l iders within the frame

of respectable middle-class values, whi le sti l l echoing other, ostens ibly more popular, fantastic or spectacular discurs ive

frameworks.


The Microcosm

In 1826 Carpenter shi fted his bus iness to 24 Regent Street in Westminster (see Figure 24), retaining both his Bath Row workshop

and New Street shop in Birmingham. He retained a presence in Birmingham for the remainder of his l i fe, but the maker’s marks

on the majori ty of his surviving instruments suggests that he cons idered Regent Street his operational base (doubtless for

prestige reasons). This move came five years after he started production of the Improved Phantasmagoria Lantern and nine

years after the Kaleidoscope, and shows Carpenter expanding after commercial success in the early 1820s. The Westminster

rate books show that he was paying rates of £178 for the Regent Street property (1634–1900: fol io 42); this shows that he had

become quite affluent.

Figure 24


Trade card for Carpenter & Westley, 1838


By 1826 Regent Street was the one of the centres of the consumer fashion world (Adburgham, 1979, pp 98–107). For a

manufacturer l ike Carpenter i t could act as a gateway to an increased retai l market and greater prestige. It i s l ikely that he was

already shipping goods to London for sale. We know that he was sending instruments to Liverpool and Bristol (Liverpool

Mercury, 1822, p 327; Morrison-Low, 2007, p 225), and that he had suppl ied telescopes to the Dol lands of London (Timmins,

1866, p 534), us ing one of the many Birmingham goods carriers . Moving to Westminster made bus iness more efficient, a l lowing

Carpenter to sel l to this market directly, without need of other instrument sel lers to act as point-of-contact salespersons. As

Carpenter’s fame grew, he would have received increased orders from the London market. His relocation to Westminster

suggests the importance of the local consumer fashion market to his bus iness model , and shows him taking steps to expand his

potentia l customer base.

Regent Street provided a thriving marketplace for fashionable products and offered an excel lent opportunity for Carpenter to

continue to specia l ise in domestic media with the Phantasmagoria Lantern and expanding range of s l ides . But Westminster a lso

commanded a thriving publ ic exhibition market. Carpenter’s shop was close to popular attractions such as the Panorama,

Diorama, Colosseum and Cosmorama, and entertainment venues such as the Egyptian Hal l and Adelaide Gal lery (Altick, 1978).

These attractions were a key part of local middle-class leisure and consumption habits . Wealthy socia l i tes would vis i t Regent

Street to browse the numerous shops and fabric warehouses, vis i t a cafe, see a show, a publ ic lecture or attend a popular

attraction. Many of the entertainment venues, such as the Adelaide Gal lery, were presented as scienti fic establ ishments

committed to publ ic education, but they were wel l -integrated into a local economy oriented towards wealthy pleasure-seekers .

In this context, Carpenter converted his shop into a publ ic attraction in i ts own right, establ ishing ‘The Microcosm: A Grand

Display of the Wonders of Nature’ (see Figure 25), an exhibition of microscopic objects and projected images instal led in the

shop on Regent Street between 1827 to 1835. The Microcosm exhibition was intended to encourage curious customers into the

shop and to set out a frame of reference that could be transferred to Carpenter and his instruments . This exhibition was

presented as scienti fic, but at the same time i t del ivered an exciting spectacle in keeping with the other (much larger) publ ic

attractions of the area. The need to sel l his products (and his own reputation) to a wealthy middle-class market led Carpenter to

present his marketing rhetoric in the context of a prevai l ing discourse on education and sel f-betterment. As we have seen, this

context structures much of his work, but he is never entirely free from a sensational ist approach to lantern discourse. Carpenter

needed to be seen as respectable and profess ional , but he also needed to capture the latent wonder of his instruments so as to

attract popular interest. This i s why the Elements of Zoology companion is so keen to establ ish i ts educational authori ty through

reference to Linnaeus, but a lso why i t describes bloodthirsty ferrets and tortoises l iving without a brain. The Microcosm also

wel l -exploited both impulses .

Figure 25


Li thographic advertisement for Phi l ip Carpenter’s Grand Microcosm, by George

Scharf, 1827


Figure 26


Li thographic advertisement for Phi l ip Carpenter’s Grand Microcosm, by George

Scharf, 1827


The Microcosm was ini tia l ly an exhibition of microscopic views us ing a solar microscope (see Figures 27, 28 and 29). This was

a microscope fi tted up to project l ike a magic lantern, but i l luminated by the Sun. Typical ly the instrument was fi tted into a hole

in a wal l so that an external mirror could channel l ight towards the objectives and project an (enlarged or microscopic) image

onto a wal l or screen. Timmins cla ims that Carpenter invented the solar microscope (1866, p 534; as does Carpenter himself,

Morning Post, 1830; ‘The Microcosm’, 1827, p 24), but i t had been a popular way of projecting images s ince the eighteenth

century (Heering, 2008; Stafford and Terpak, 2001, pp 215–220). Given that l imel ight i l lumination was not commonly used unti l

1838 (Lambert, 1997), a wel l -i l luminated solar microscope held a cons iderable advantage over the (sti l l candle-, oi l - or argand-

powered) magic lantern in projection power. As with his Improved Phantasmagoria Lantern, Carpenter successful ly presented

an existing optical technology as a popular novelty.

Figure 27


Solar microscope by John Cuff, 1753


Figure 28


Il lustration of a Solar Microscope, in The Museum of Art and Science by Dionys ius

Lardner, 1855


Figure 29


Il lustration of a Solar Microscope by Adam Wolfgang Winterschmidt, in

Mikroskoopische Vermaaklykheden by Martin Frobenius Ledermul ler, 1776


An announcement in The Morning Post in June 1827 shows that there were ini tia l ly twelve microscopes, exhibiting ‘the wonders

of nature on a magnitude never before attempted’ (1827). This was later expanded to fourteen, as a later advertisement shows

(see Figure 25) and supported by various other effects and multiple compound microscopes. The microscopes were powered by

the Sun during the day, but gas-powered after dark, giving continuous projections from eleven unti l eight each day. Vis i tors

would view enlarged cheese-mites and aquatic creatures. An advert in The Morning Post says that ‘a s ingle drop of water, fi l led

with innumerable l iving creatures , occupies a space nine feet in diameter’ (1830). Carpenter again publ ished a companion

booklet that describes the di fferent objects on view. Companion to the Microcosm l i s ts seven transparent insects , five worms

and 49 opaque objects , including beetles , earwigs , locusts , fleas , corals and l i zard skin. These were varied regularly in the

fourteen avai lable microscopes.

We get an idea of what would have been seen through two l i thographs in the Science Museum trade card col lection (see Figures

25 and 26) and a handful of contemporary reports . Thomas Gi l l of The Technical Repository explains:

There are general ly three sets of objects to each microscope, and these are a lso changed from time to time, so that novelty

wi l l never be wanting in this pleas ing exhibition. The Objects are held in glazed frames, and are exposed on the outs ide of

the house, to the ful l influence of dayl ight, and, at night, are i l luminated by lamps the flames of which are reflected upon

the objects by adjusting speculums. […] Among the opaque objects , the diamond curcul io forms, as i t ought a conspicuous

one. It i s exhibited entire, on a magnificent scale, and also in separate parts , s ti l l more magnified. In the transparent ones,

the eels in paste are very beauti ful ly shewn, a lso the cheese mites and the water fleas , a l l a l ive, and exerting their pecul iar

movements . Mr. Carpenter has a lso fi tted up a large concave speculum, in a pecul iar manner, so as to exhibit magnified

views of larger objects , exceedingly wel l i l luminated and defined; as , for instance, two large Indian cerambyxes, a locust,

with i ts wings ful ly displayed, and a coral l ine. (1827, pp 342–343)

Simi larly, The Mirror of Literature reports that there were views of crystal l i sed sal ts and coppers , insects and eggs; there were

young aphides that, ‘feeding upon the juices of the leaf, […] present the appearance of a flock of sheep feeding upon an extens ive

plain’ (1836, p 41). Typical ly, commentators address the beauty or curiousness of the projections rather than any scienti fic

content. This i s to be expected given Carpenter’s integration into the local entertainment landscape around Westminster.

Further up Regent Street, the Cosmorama provided a s imi lar display of curious views (Altick, 1978, pp 212–214; Huhtamo, 2012,

pp 40–41). The Cosmorama exhibited miniature panoramas and peephole views of famous landmarks, and whi le these had l i ttle

scienti fic content, they seemed to have been s imi larly advertised to vis i tors ; that i s , as spectacles . Adverts in the Theatrical

Observer show the Cosmorama and Microcosm advertised s ide by s ide, evidently targeted towards the same vis i tors (1827, p 2).

As advertisement bi l l s show, the Microcosm was later expanded to include additional curios i ties that were more typical of

other optical attractions. Fi rst a camera obscura was added in an adjoining room to give ‘a l iving picture of Regent Street’ (see

Figure 30). Later sti l l , the solar microscope was adjusted to operate by hydro-oxygen gas , so as to be brighter and

unconstrained by weather conditions (see Figure 31).

Figure 30


Handbi l l for Phi l ip Carpenter’s Microcosm, 1827–1833


Figure 31


Handbi l l for Phi l ip Carpenter’s Microcosm, 1833–1838


This i s l ikely to have been sometime in the mid-to-late 1830s, after Carpenter’s death, as l imel ight was not commonly used in

projection unti l then.[1] At this time s ix cosmoramas of architectural and landscape views were also added to rival those

exhibited elsewhere, plus an attraction cal led the Phantascopia, an exhibition of spectral views that appeared sol id, but were

i l lus ions – ‘these images are seen by the spectator suspended in the air so that the effect appears to him supernatural ’. By this

time, the scienti fic impulse had ful ly given way to pure spectacle. In 1828, one writer to the Theatrical Observer reported his

outings to various attractions around Westminster; vis i ting Regent’s Park, the Egyptian Hal l , the Microcosm and the

Cosmorama:

At 3 I shal l be found, with my spectacles off, admiring the truly grand display of the Wonders of Nature—I don’t mean the

Naturals cal led Fops; but the Microscopic Wonders , exhibited by Mr Carpenter, the Optician, in Regent Street. Afterwards I

shal l look in on Mr. Finn, in the Same Street, at his Fancy Glass-working Exhibition—and pretty Work shop. […] On Friday I

step into The Cosmorama, Regent Street—thirteen new Views—charming i l lus ion, the effect of sunshine and shade

astonishing;—wander through Rome, Switzerland, Val ley of Lauterbroun, and take a peep at the Grand Sultan, and the

Seragl io, Constantinople. (1829, p 2)

The ultimate aim of the Microcosm was to pul l potentia l customers into Carpenter’s shop. He was sti l l a major manufacturer of

spectacles and optical instruments , but his leanings were now towards the curious, middle-class market. Indeed, the

importance of the popular trade to his bus iness model i s indicated by the fact that he branded his enti re bus iness as ‘The

Microcosm’ in the early 1830s. A catalogue uses the moniker before the fi rst l ine of his address (Carpenter, 1834) and a smal l

microscope in the Science Museum features i t as part of the maker’s mark on the ins ide of the box (see Figure 32). This

instrument was clearly a smal l off-the-shel f i tem, but i t i s instructive to see evidence of Carpenter’s microscopic vis ions feeding

into his broader instrument retai l .

Figure 32


Smal l microscope by Phi l ip Carpenter, in mahogany box, 1826–1833



Conclusion

By the 1840s certain instrument makers had divers i fied sufficiently to be cons idered a di fferent trade entirely. These were

practi tioners of the optical media trade and, later, the magic lantern trade. Carpenter’s bus iness became Carpenter & Westley

in 1837, going on to become one of the major drivers of the lantern and domestic media markets . Other instrument makers such

as Newton & Co. (who had been opticians and globe makers) s imi larly shi fted into the popular entertainment market and, by the

end of the century, a lmost completely dedicating themselves to lantern s l ide retai l (Robinson, Herbert and Crangle, 2001, pp

209–210). These bus inesses were joined in the second hal f of the nineteenth century by other manufacturers and retai lers that

were not from instrument manufacturing backgrounds. Frederick York started out sel l ing photographic equipment in 1863, but

later sold stereoviews and lantern s l ides as York & Son (Robinson, Herbert and Crangle, 2001, pp 330–331); W C Hughes fi rst

took over a chemist’s bus iness in 1879, later manufacturing lanterns and fi lm equipment (Robinson, Herbert and Crangle, 2001,

p 141). These later entrants into the optical entertainment market show that the trade had completely divested i tsel f of i ts

earl ier connections with the scienti fic instrument trade. It had now absorbed cognate media practices from the trade in

photographic equipment and chemicals , the toy trade and, at the very end of the century, the rapidly expanding trade in

cinematic equipment.

The Kaleidoscope, Improved Phantasmagoria Lantern and Microcosm were key moments in the expansion of the market for

popular media entertainment in the early nineteenth century and indicate how instrument makers could transform their

bus inesses to take advantage of new commercial opportunities . Through manufacturing innovations, clever marketing and

exploitation of economic changes at the beginning of the century, Carpenter was able to bui ld a powerful presence in the publ ic

imagination as a suppl ier of optical entertainments . As I have shown, these were most often consumed for their appeal to

novelty and wonderment, but there was a lso an important discourse on education and scienti fic value underpinning these

appeals . Harking back to an older conception of science, where experimental practi tioners remained close to natural magic,

Carpenter understood that science already possessed an enduring kernel of wonderment and that this could be uti l i sed as a

seductive draw to curious consumers. As one reviewer put i t, he sold ‘instruments to instruct and astonish at one glance’ (‘The

Microcosm’, 1827, p 24). This i s evident in a l l of Carpenter’s trade l i terature, which ostens ibly provided information for

scienti fic education, but betrayed a giddy exci tement at the forms of the natural world. In Companion to the Microcosm

Carpenter says of the Green Polyp:

The most surpris ing part in the history of these animals , i s that when one of them is cut in two, each part soon becomes a

perfect polype, or i f the head is s l i t, each becomes a perfect head, so that by going on to s l i t the heads as they grow, we

may form polypes with as many heads as we please. If the di fferent portions of the polypes which have been divided be

placed end to end and gently pushed together, the parts wi l l unite, and thus polypes may be formed of the head of one and

the body of the other. By pushing the polype into the mouth of another, so that their heads may be brought into contact,

and kept in that s i tuation for some time they wi l l unite, and form one animal , and form one animal but with twice the

number of arms. A polype may be turned ins ide out l ike a glove, so that the l ining of i ts stomach becomes the outer skin,

and i t wi l l l ive and perform al l i ts functions as before. (1827, pp 18–19)


Tags

History of science

Science and society

Instrument makers

Nineteenth century

Publ ic engagement

Footnotes

1. Limel ight was not appl ied to lantern projection unti l 1838 (Lambert, 1997), but I have no date for i ts appl ication to

microscopy. Russel l Lant Carpenter says that the Microcosm was discontinued in 1835, after decl ining attendance

(1878, p 50). I am undecided on whether Russel l Lant has misattributed the date, or i f the oxy-hydrogen microscope

predated i ts lantern equivalent by three years or more.

References

1. Adburgham, A, 1979, Shopping in Style: London From the Restoration to Edwardian Elegance(London: Thames and Hudson)

2. Altick, R D, 1978, The Shows of London (Cambridge: Belknap Press)

3. Barclay, R L, 1993, ‘The Metals of the Scienti fic Instrument Maker, Part 1: Brass ’ in Bulletin of the Scientific Instrument

Society 39: 32–36

4. Barnes, J, 1997, ‘The History of the Magic Lantern’ in Crompton, D, Frankl in, F and Herbert, S (eds), Servants of Light: The

Book of the Lantern (London: Magic Lantern Society), pp 8–33

5. Barnes, J, 1984, ‘Phi l ip Carpenter, 1776-1833’ in New Magic Lantern Journal 3.2, pp 8–9

6. Beattie, T, 2013, ‘Carpenter and Westley: Their History and Artistry’ in New Magic Lantern Journal 11.4: 6–10

7. Bedini , S, 1964, Early American Scientific Instruments and their Makers (Washington DC: Smithsonian Insti tution)

8. Berg, M, 2005, Luxury & Pleasure in Eighteenth-Century Britain (Oxford: Oxford Univers i ty Press)

9. Berg, M, 2004, ‘Consumption in Eighteenth- and Early Nineteenth-Century Bri ta in’ in Floud and Johnson (eds), The

Cambridge Economic History of Modern Britain, Volume 1: Industrialisation, 1700–1860 (Cambridge: Cambridge Univers i ty

Press), pp 357–387

10. Berg, M, 1998, ‘Product Innovation in Core Consumer Industries in Eighteenth Century Bri ta in’ in Berg, M and Bruland, K

(eds), Technological Revolutions in Europe: Historical Perspectives (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar), pp 138–157

11. Berg, M, 1993, ‘Smal l Producer Capital ism in Eighteenth Century England’ in Bus iness History 35: 17–39

12. Berg, M, 1991, ‘Commerce and Creativi ty in Eighteenth-Century Birmingham’ in Markets and Manufacture in Early

Industrial Europe (London: Routledge), pp 173–204

13. Brewster, D, 1833 [1831], A Treatise on Optics, 2nd edition (London: Longman, Rees, Orme Brown, Green & Longman/John

Taylor)

14. Brewster, D, 1830, ‘Kaleidoscope’, in The Edinburgh Encyclopaedia, Vol 18 (Edinburgh: Wi l l iam Blackwood), pp 410–411

15. Brewster, D, 1819, A Treatise on the Kaleidoscope (Edinburgh: A Constable)

16. Bryden, D J, 1972, Scottish Scientific Instrument Makers 1600–1900 (Edinburgh: Royal Scottish Museum)

17. Bush, N G, 2015, ‘Kaleidoscopism: The Circulation of a Mid-Century Metaphor and Moti f’ in Journal of Victorian Culture

20:4, pp 509–530

18. Carpenter, P, 1834, A Catalogue of Optical & Mathematic Instruments Manufactured and Sold by P. Carpenter, Microcosm,

No. 24 Regent Street (London: H Starie)

19. ‘Carpenter’s New Phantasmagoria Lantern, and Copperplate Sl iders ’ (1822) in The Liverpool Mercury, p 327

20. Carpenter, P, 1827, A Companion to the Microcosm; Being a Concise Account of the Insects, Animalcules, Corals, Corralines,

and Other Objects, Seen in the Microcosm of that Interesting Exhibition (London: W Gl indon)

21. Carpenter, P, 1823, Elements of zoology; Being a Concise Account of the Animal Kingdom, According to the System of

Linnaeus. Intended for the use of Young Persons, and as a Companion to the New Copper-Plate Sl iders . To which is

Added, a Short Account of the Copper-Plate Sl iders , and a Description of an Improved Phantasmagoria Lantern (London:

Rowland Hunter)

22. Carpenter, R L, 1878, In Memory of Mary Carpenter, of 24 Regent Street, London, Who Died October 30th, 1877, aged 90

years (Bristol : Arrowsmith)

23. Carpenter and Westley, 1850, A Companion to the Improved Phantasmagoria Lantern, Containing a List of Subjects; To

Which is added a Description of the Lantern and Copper-Plate Sliders, with the Method of Exhibiting the Dissolving Views,

with Plates (4th edition) (London: Carpenter & Westley)

24. Commercial Directory for 1818–19–20, 1818, (Manchester: James Piggot/R and W Dean)

25. Correia, D, 2016, ‘The Scienti fic Nature of the Kaleidoscope’ in Bulletin of the Scientific Instrument Society 131, pp 2–7

26. Daston, L and Park, K, 2001, Wonders and the Order of Nature, 1150-1750 (New York: Zone Books)

27. Davidson, J A, 2011, ‘Magic Lantern Optics : Their History and Development 300 B.C. to 2004’ in The Magic Lantern Gazette

23.1: 3–20

28. Davis , D, 1966, A History of Shopping (London: Purnel l Book Services)

29. Gi l l , T, 1827, The Technical Repository, Containing Practical Information on Subjects Connected With Discoveries and

Improvements in the Useful Arts, Vol 11 (London: T Cadel l )

30. Gonin, R, 2010, ‘The Travel l ing Lantern of Auvergne’, Crangle, R (trans), in New Magic Lantern Journal 10.6, pp 103–106

31. Groth, H, 2007, ‘Kaleidoscopic Vis ion and Li terary Invention in an “Age of Things”: David Brewster, Don Juan and “A

Lady's Kaleidoscope”’ in ELH 74.1: 217–237

32. Heard, M, 2006, Phantasmagoria: The Secret Life of the Magic Lantern (Hastings: Projection Box)

33. Hecht, H, 1980, ‘Decalomania: Some Prel iminary Investigations into the History of Transfer Sl ides ’ in New Magic Lantern

Journal 1.3, pp 3–6

34. Heering, P, 2008, ‘The Enl ightened Microscope: Re-enactment and Analys is of Projections with Eighteenth-Century Solar

Microscopes’ in British Journal for the History of Science 41.3, pp 345–367

35. Hopkins , E, 1989, Birmingham: The First Manufacturing Town in the World, 1760–1840 (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson)

36. Huhtamo, E, 2014, ‘Al l the World’s a Kaleidoscope: A Media Archaeological Perspective to the Incubation Era of Media

Culture’ in Rivista di estetica 55, pp 139–153

37. Huhtamo, E, 2012, ‘Towards a History of Peep Practice’ in Dulac, N, Gaudreault, A and Hidalgo, S (eds), A Companion to

Early Cinema (Chichester: Wi ley-Blackwel l ), pp 32–51

38. Frutos, F J, 2013, ‘From Luminous Pictures to Transparent Photographs: The Evolution of Techniques for Making Magic

Lantern Sl ides ’ in The Magic Lantern Gazette 25.3, pp 3–11

39. Lambert, M L, 1997, ‘Origins and Early History of Limel ight’ in Crompton, Frankl in and Herbert (eds), Servants of Light: The

Book of the Lantern (Ripon: Magic Lantern Society), pp 46–51

40. ‘List of Fashionable Lounges’, 1827, The Theatrical Observer; and Daily Bills of the Play, p 2

41. Mannoni , L, 2000 [1995], The Great Art of Light and Shadow: Archaeology of the Cinema, Crangle, R (trans) (Exeter:

Univers i ty of Exeter Press)

42. McConnel , A, 1992, Instrument Makers to the World: A History of Cooke, Troughton & Simms (York: Wi l l iam Sess ions)

43. ‘The Microcosm’, 1827, in The Edinburgh Review, or Critical Journal 92, p 24

44. ‘The Microcosm, 24, Regent-Street’, 1830, in The Morning Post, 22 May

45. ‘Microcosm – A Grand Display of the Wonders of Nature, 1830, in The Morning Post, 26 June

46. Morrison-Low, A, 2007, Making Scientific Instruments in the Industrial Revolution (Aldershot and Burl ington: Ashgate)

47. MS 3375/407007 (1813) Lease for one hundred and seven years from Caroline Colmore of Teddington, co. Middx., spinster,

to Philip Carpenter of Birmingham, optician, of land in Bath Row, 1 May 1813 (Birmingham: Wolfson Centre for Archival

Research,Library of Birmingham)

48. MS 3375/407009, 1816, Indenture of mortgage from Philip Carpenter of Birmingham, Optician, to Ann Capner of Yardley,

spinster, of Leasehold land and premises in Bath Row, 5 December 1816 (Birmingham: Wolfson Centre for Archival

Research,Library of Birmingham)

49. ’On the Kaleidoscope’, 1818, Philosophical Magazine 51.242, pp 376–81

50. Paris , J A, 1833 [1831], Philosophy in Sport Made Science in Ernest; Being an Attempt to Illustrate the First Principles of

Natural Philosophy by the Aid of Popular Toys and Sports (London: Sherwood, Gi lbert and Piper)

51. ‘Pol i tical Periscope’, 1818, in The Literary Panorama, and National Register 8, (London: Simkin and Marshal l/C Taylor), pp

502–508

52. PROB 11/1815/261, 1833, Will of Philip Carpenter, Optician of Saint James Westminster, Middlesex, 18 May 1833, (London:

National Archives)

53. QS/76/3 (1772–1824) Jury books for Warwickshire County. 7 Vols , (Warwick: Warwickshire County Records Office)

54. Roberts , P2016a, ‘The Early Li fe of Phi l ip Carpenter’, in The Magic Lantern 6, pp 10–13

55. Roberts , P, 2016b, ‘Bui lding Media History From Fragments: A Materia l History of Phi l ip Carpenter’s Manufacturing

Practice’, in Early Popular Visual Culture 14.4, pp 319–339

56. Rossel l , D, 2008, Laterna Magica,Vol 1 (Stuttgart: Füss l in Verlag)

57. Sorrenson, R, 1995, ‘The State’s Demand for Accurate Astronomical and Navigational Instruments in Eighteenth Century

Bri ta in’, in Bermingham A and Brewer, B (eds), The Consumption of Culture: Image, Object, Text (London and New York:

Routledge)

58. ‘Spiri t of Discovery: The Microscope’, 1836, in The Mirror of Literature, Amusement and Instruction 759, pp 40–42

59. Stafford, B M and Terpak, F, 2001, Devices of Wonder: From the World in a Box to Images on a Screen (Los Angeles: Getty

Research Insti tute)

60. Talbot, S, 2006, ‘The Perfectionist Projectionist: Phi l ip Carpenter, 24 Regent Street London’, in Bulletin of the Scientific

Instrument Society 88, pp 17–20

61. ‘The Most Important Inventions and Discoveries of our Times’, 1819, in The Atheneum; or, Spirit of the English Magazines

6 (Boston: Monroe and Francis ), pp 116–120

62. Timmins, S, 1866, The Resources, Products and Industrial History of Birmingham: A Series of Reports Collected by the Local

Industries Committee of the British Association at Birmingham, in 1865 (London: Robert Hardwick)

63. ‘To the Editor of the Theatrical Observer’, 1828, in The Theatrical Observer; and Daily Bills of the Play, 2016, p 2

64. Westminster Rate Books, 1634–1900. Fol io 42 (London: Ci ty of Westminster Archives)

65. Wrightson’s New Triennial Directory of Birmingham, 1823 (Birmingham: R Wrightson)

66. Wrightson’s New Triennial Directory of Birmingham, 1818 (Birmingham: R Wrightson)

Author information

Phi l l ip Roberts i s a researcher working with the National Science and Media Museum and Univers i ty of York. He is wri ting a

history of the magic lantern in the nineteenth century, a iming to show the many interrelated causes of the late century lantern

industry and i ts ongoing effects on visual media over the fol lowing decades. He has publ ished work in Film History, Cultural

Politics, The Magic Lantern and Early Popular Visual Culture and is the editor of three special i ssues on media culture.

Phillip Roberts

Researcher

Contact this author >

Documents

Philip Carpenter and the convergence of science and