5 ms·

I thought yhat was more the 17th — 19th centuries, and that in the Renaissance the aristocracy was still happy being landed do-nothings and the new bourgeois wa

I thought yhat was more the 17th — 19th centuries, and that in the Renaissance the aristocracy was still happy being landed do-nothings and the new bourgeois was driving things. On the other hand, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tycho_Brahe https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tycho_Brahe

mlindner 6y ago
Tycho wasn't the only one, there's a few others but I forget their names.
jhbadger 6y ago
There's a great book called "Age of Wonder: The Romantic Generation and the Discovery of the Beauty and Terror of Science" by Richard Holmes that is about the period between Newton and Darwin in which science and art were mixed -- you had poets like Coleridge who were amateur chemists (no, he wasn't making his own drugs, to spare the obvious joke given his habits), and chemists like Humphrey Davy who were amateur poets.
mcguire 6y ago
Johannes Kepler was apparently the son of a mercenary who disappeared when he was young and an innkeeper's daughter. Leonardo was the illegitimate son of a legal notary and a peasant. Brunelleschi was the son of another notary. Sebastien de Vaubon was the son of minor, broke nobility whose first position was for Louis de Bourbon, Prince of Conde. Quite a few of the famous in the Renaissance lived by patronage from the aristocracy, but were not themselves wealthy or powerful.
- rsj_hn 6y ago
  Yes, this stereotype of innovation or invention being driven by rich dilletantes is absolutely false, and comes from a marxian historical analysis where the adherents didn't want to acknowledge that drivers of innovation for the most part were from the same background as, uhh, Marx himself, rather than from the nobility. It is also a dismissive attitude of the incredible obstacles that scientists and inventors had to overcome as they tinkered in garages, rising before dawn to conduct controlled experiments on plots rented with money that should have gone to pay for necessessities, spent family savings on acquiring books, and devoted their lives to improving the human condition, merely to brand them as dilletantes who never had to work for a living. Sure, wealthy aristocrats were over-represented but were a minority among the ranks of famous engineers and scientists. Most were of modest means, the sons of schoolteachers, reverends, carpenters, iron mongers, small shopkeepers, etc. Innovation is the child of the bourgeoisie. * George Green (1790s-1840s), of Green's theorem fame, grew up in modest circumstances -- his father was a baker and he worked at the bakery when he was young in order to support himself. * Benjamin Franklin (1700s-1790s) grew up in a family with modest means -- his parents could only afford 2 years of schooling and he worked on various odd jobs to support himself before achieving fame. * C. F. Gauss (1770s-1855) - perhaps the greatest mathematician of all time -- was born to poor, working class parents. His mother was illiterate and the date of his birth wasn't even recorded. * Isaac Barrow (1630s-1670s) -- was born into a middle class family, the son of a linen draper. * Isaac Newton (1640s-1720s) -- his father became wealthy but then spent all the money and died before Newton was born. His mother had to give him away to his grandmother and when she died Newton lived with the family of an apothecary. Unfortunately he was passed around. Newton did attend some elite schools but he did so on scholarship. * Thomas Newcomen (1660s-1720s) - inventor of the first successful steam engine -- was an iron monger and lay preacher, as well as an elder in a baptist church. * Bartolomeo Cristofori (1650s-1730s) - inventor of the piano -- was a commoner who grew up in obscurity, worked for luthiers, and got his big break when he was hired to fix the musical instruments of the Medici family. * John Shore (1660s – 1750s) - inventor of the tuning fork - was a professional trumpet player * Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit (1680s-1740s) - famous physicist and inventor -- worked as a merchant in Holland - as bourgeoisie as it gets! * John Kay (1700s-1770s) - inventor of the flying shuttle which helped kickstart the British textile revolution - came was the son of yeoman farmer, and apprenticed with a hand loom reed maker. * Pieter van Musschenbroek (1690s-1760s) - one of the co-inventors of the Leiden jar -- was the son of an instrument maker. * John Campbell, (1720s-1790s) - inventor of the sextant - was the son of a minister, and worked as an apprentice to a coastal vessel, then enrolled in the Navy, then was promoted to master's mate. * John Dolland (1700s-1761) - inventor of the chromatic lense - was the son of a silk-weaver and worked as an optician. * John Harrison (1690s-1770s) - inventor of the marine chronometer -- was the son of a carpenter and had no formal schooling. He also worked as a choirmaster. * James Hargreaves (1720-1778) - inventor of the Spinning Jenny - was the son of an illiterate hand-loom weaver, and himself worked as a weaver and a carpenter * Joseph Priestley (1733-1804) - scientist, natural philosopher, inventor (of carbonated water), discoverer of Oxygen, theologian, and author of over 150 books, was born to a large family of cloth finishers. He was also passed around to relatives. He worked all his life as a schoolteacher. * Richard Arkwright (1730s-1790s) - developer of the spinning frame and pioneer of the industrial revolution - was the son of a tailor (although he died a Queen's knight). His parents could not afford to send him to school so he was tutored by his cousin. * James Watt (1730s-1810s) - inventor and industrial age pioneer -- was the son of a shipwright and ship owner. He worked in his father's shipwrights. * Samuel Crompton (1750s-1820s) - inventor of the spinning mule - was the son of a groundskeeper. His father died, when Crompton was a young and spin yarn to make up for the lost income, and that experience led him to develop the mule, which he worked on secretly at night. * Henry Cort (1740s-1800s) - inventor of the steel roller and many other iron refining innovations - while there are no records of his birth or family, he first appears working for the Royal Navy as a paymaster. * Andrew Meikle (1710s-1810s) - inventor of the threshing machine and contributor to the Rotherham Plough, he helped spark tha British agricultural revoluion. He worked as a millwright. * John Fitch (1740s-1790s) - inventor of the steamboat - received little formal schooling, the occupation of his parents is unknown but he worked as an apprentice to a clockmaker.
  - aeoleonn 6y ago
    It's so funny... Once a person clings to Marxism / Socialism, it's like that expression "when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." They begin to see Marxist-related thought patterns everywhere, such as "Competency? that must be due to [class based] privilege!" rather than a person actually investing their time, studying/experimenting/researching/inventing/creating, despite hardships. Recently, during the winter storm, I cooked breakfast for a neighbor (a college student studying Journalism). His response to me giving him some free food: "You know what this is, right? It's socialism." Me: "Uh... it's just sharing some food one time." while quietly thinking: "Gee, I hope he doesn't call every aspect of sharing "socialism" because that would be annoying and cringey."
    - foerbert 6y ago
      You're using a rather glossed over small to dismiss the large. You are right - it's somebody with some food sharing one time. That's what it is, in the small. But in the large, what do you call it? You want to describe a society where such acts are common place, and perhaps compare it to a society in which it is not. Or you want to discuss the relative frequency of these acts. At this point, you need more than "just a little thing a person did once that doesn't mean anything" to work with these concepts. Then you get politics thrown into the mix, propaganda every which way, and next thing you know you've got somebody complaining about others "clinging to Marxism" on the internet.
      - devmunchies 6y ago
        > You want to describe a society where such acts are common place, and perhaps compare it to a society in which it is not Whether a society shares resources freely doesn't indicate socialism. Socialism is when the government enforces said sharing. Its about free agency.
      - novembermike 6y ago
        Social services are not socialism. Socialism is about the workers owning the means of production. Social services are something that goes back to basically the dawn of human society (Roman bread and circuses are a classic example).
- 908B64B197 6y ago
  Civil law notaries can do much more than common law notaries. Often the tittle was even hereditary. No wealthy nobles but not poor either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_notary#Distinction_from_American_notaries_public https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_notary#Distinction_f...
  - mcguire 6y ago
    True. But my point was that, although they were wealthy enough to get an education, they were not wealthy enough to go off and spend their lives unconcerned with in the same way that many (not all!) of the scientists of the early industrial revolution were. They instead had to have a job doing whatever they were doing or to have a wealthy or powerful patron to support them.
    - 908B64B197 6y ago
      I didn't mean my response to be argumentative, sorry about that! It's more of an FYI to readers who never interacted with a civil law jurisdiction.

mlindner 6y ago

Tycho wasn't the only one, there's a few others but I forget their names.

jhbadger 6y ago

There's a great book called "Age of Wonder: The Romantic Generation and the Discovery of the Beauty and Terror of Science" by Richard Holmes that is about the period between Newton and Darwin in which science and art were mixed -- you had poets like Coleridge who were amateur chemists (no, he wasn't making his own drugs, to spare the obvious joke given his habits), and chemists like Humphrey Davy who were amateur poets.

mcguire 6y ago

Johannes Kepler was apparently the son of a mercenary who disappeared when he was young and an innkeeper's daughter. Leonardo was the illegitimate son of a legal notary and a peasant. Brunelleschi was the son of another notary. Sebastien de Vaubon was the son of minor, broke nobility whose first position was for Louis de Bourbon, Prince of Conde. Quite a few of the famous in the Renaissance lived by patronage from the aristocracy, but were not themselves wealthy or powerful.

rsj_hn 6y ago
Yes, this stereotype of innovation or invention being driven by rich dilletantes is absolutely false, and comes from a marxian historical analysis where the adherents didn't want to acknowledge that drivers of innovation for the most part were from the same background as, uhh, Marx himself, rather than from the nobility. It is also a dismissive attitude of the incredible obstacles that scientists and inventors had to overcome as they tinkered in garages, rising before dawn to conduct controlled experiments on plots rented with money that should have gone to pay for necessessities, spent family savings on acquiring books, and devoted their lives to improving the human condition, merely to brand them as dilletantes who never had to work for a living. Sure, wealthy aristocrats were over-represented but were a minority among the ranks of famous engineers and scientists. Most were of modest means, the sons of schoolteachers, reverends, carpenters, iron mongers, small shopkeepers, etc. Innovation is the child of the bourgeoisie. * George Green (1790s-1840s), of Green's theorem fame, grew up in modest circumstances -- his father was a baker and he worked at the bakery when he was young in order to support himself. * Benjamin Franklin (1700s-1790s) grew up in a family with modest means -- his parents could only afford 2 years of schooling and he worked on various odd jobs to support himself before achieving fame. * C. F. Gauss (1770s-1855) - perhaps the greatest mathematician of all time -- was born to poor, working class parents. His mother was illiterate and the date of his birth wasn't even recorded. * Isaac Barrow (1630s-1670s) -- was born into a middle class family, the son of a linen draper. * Isaac Newton (1640s-1720s) -- his father became wealthy but then spent all the money and died before Newton was born. His mother had to give him away to his grandmother and when she died Newton lived with the family of an apothecary. Unfortunately he was passed around. Newton did attend some elite schools but he did so on scholarship. * Thomas Newcomen (1660s-1720s) - inventor of the first successful steam engine -- was an iron monger and lay preacher, as well as an elder in a baptist church. * Bartolomeo Cristofori (1650s-1730s) - inventor of the piano -- was a commoner who grew up in obscurity, worked for luthiers, and got his big break when he was hired to fix the musical instruments of the Medici family. * John Shore (1660s – 1750s) - inventor of the tuning fork - was a professional trumpet player * Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit (1680s-1740s) - famous physicist and inventor -- worked as a merchant in Holland - as bourgeoisie as it gets! * John Kay (1700s-1770s) - inventor of the flying shuttle which helped kickstart the British textile revolution - came was the son of yeoman farmer, and apprenticed with a hand loom reed maker. * Pieter van Musschenbroek (1690s-1760s) - one of the co-inventors of the Leiden jar -- was the son of an instrument maker. * John Campbell, (1720s-1790s) - inventor of the sextant - was the son of a minister, and worked as an apprentice to a coastal vessel, then enrolled in the Navy, then was promoted to master's mate. * John Dolland (1700s-1761) - inventor of the chromatic lense - was the son of a silk-weaver and worked as an optician. * John Harrison (1690s-1770s) - inventor of the marine chronometer -- was the son of a carpenter and had no formal schooling. He also worked as a choirmaster. * James Hargreaves (1720-1778) - inventor of the Spinning Jenny - was the son of an illiterate hand-loom weaver, and himself worked as a weaver and a carpenter * Joseph Priestley (1733-1804) - scientist, natural philosopher, inventor (of carbonated water), discoverer of Oxygen, theologian, and author of over 150 books, was born to a large family of cloth finishers. He was also passed around to relatives. He worked all his life as a schoolteacher. * Richard Arkwright (1730s-1790s) - developer of the spinning frame and pioneer of the industrial revolution - was the son of a tailor (although he died a Queen's knight). His parents could not afford to send him to school so he was tutored by his cousin. * James Watt (1730s-1810s) - inventor and industrial age pioneer -- was the son of a shipwright and ship owner. He worked in his father's shipwrights. * Samuel Crompton (1750s-1820s) - inventor of the spinning mule - was the son of a groundskeeper. His father died, when Crompton was a young and spin yarn to make up for the lost income, and that experience led him to develop the mule, which he worked on secretly at night. * Henry Cort (1740s-1800s) - inventor of the steel roller and many other iron refining innovations - while there are no records of his birth or family, he first appears working for the Royal Navy as a paymaster. * Andrew Meikle (1710s-1810s) - inventor of the threshing machine and contributor to the Rotherham Plough, he helped spark tha British agricultural revoluion. He worked as a millwright. * John Fitch (1740s-1790s) - inventor of the steamboat - received little formal schooling, the occupation of his parents is unknown but he worked as an apprentice to a clockmaker.
- aeoleonn 6y ago
  It's so funny... Once a person clings to Marxism / Socialism, it's like that expression "when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." They begin to see Marxist-related thought patterns everywhere, such as "Competency? that must be due to [class based] privilege!" rather than a person actually investing their time, studying/experimenting/researching/inventing/creating, despite hardships. Recently, during the winter storm, I cooked breakfast for a neighbor (a college student studying Journalism). His response to me giving him some free food: "You know what this is, right? It's socialism." Me: "Uh... it's just sharing some food one time." while quietly thinking: "Gee, I hope he doesn't call every aspect of sharing "socialism" because that would be annoying and cringey."
  - foerbert 6y ago
    You're using a rather glossed over small to dismiss the large. You are right - it's somebody with some food sharing one time. That's what it is, in the small. But in the large, what do you call it? You want to describe a society where such acts are common place, and perhaps compare it to a society in which it is not. Or you want to discuss the relative frequency of these acts. At this point, you need more than "just a little thing a person did once that doesn't mean anything" to work with these concepts. Then you get politics thrown into the mix, propaganda every which way, and next thing you know you've got somebody complaining about others "clinging to Marxism" on the internet.
    - devmunchies 6y ago
      > You want to describe a society where such acts are common place, and perhaps compare it to a society in which it is not Whether a society shares resources freely doesn't indicate socialism. Socialism is when the government enforces said sharing. Its about free agency.
    - novembermike 6y ago
      Social services are not socialism. Socialism is about the workers owning the means of production. Social services are something that goes back to basically the dawn of human society (Roman bread and circuses are a classic example).
908B64B197 6y ago
Civil law notaries can do much more than common law notaries. Often the tittle was even hereditary. No wealthy nobles but not poor either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_notary#Distinction_from_American_notaries_public https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_notary#Distinction_f...
- mcguire 6y ago
  True. But my point was that, although they were wealthy enough to get an education, they were not wealthy enough to go off and spend their lives unconcerned with in the same way that many (not all!) of the scientists of the early industrial revolution were. They instead had to have a job doing whatever they were doing or to have a wealthy or powerful patron to support them.
  - 908B64B197 6y ago
    I didn't mean my response to be argumentative, sorry about that! It's more of an FYI to readers who never interacted with a civil law jurisdiction.