Acknowledgements:

SupportedbytheCentreforResearchintheArts,HumanitiesandSocialSciences(CRASSHandtheEuropeanResearchCouncil(ERC)undertheSeventhFrameworkProgramme(FP7/2007-2013)/ERCgrantagreementno

EC617391

Frontcoverimage:‘VulcanforgingtheThunderboltsofJupiter’PeterPaulRubens(1636-1638)

MuseodelPrado,viaWikimediaCommons

Backcoverimage‘TroubleComestotheAlchemist’DutchSchool(17th-century)ChemicalHeritageFoundation(CHF),viaWikimediaCommons

CentreforResearchintheArts,SocialSciencesandHumanities(CRASSH)|AlisonRichardBuilding|7WestRoad|CambridgeCB39DT|UK|

www.crassh.cam.ac.uk

Programme

Wednesday10May LittleHall,SidgwickSite

17:00 IngeniousFailure:ArtisanalLanguagesofErrorPubliclecturebySvenDupré,UtrechtUniversityandUniversityofAmsterdam

18:00 WinereceptioninAtrium,AlisonRichardBuilding

cd

Thursday11May RoomSG1/2,AlisonRichardBuilding

9:00 RegistrationandCoffee

9:15 OpeningRemarksbyRichardOosterhoff

9:30 SessionI Chair:AlexanderMarr

Io’sHoofandtheOriginsofLetters:IngenuityandInventioninGeofroyTory’sChampFleuryof1529AndrewMorrall,BardGraduateCenter

TheserequiretheindustryofthemostingeniousArtificer[…]”:TheMakingoftheIngeniousArtifexandArtificersinEarlyModern‘Manuals’(1540-1662)JennyBoulboullé,UtrechtUniversity

RedefiningIngenuityandTechniqueinArtTheoryandCritique,ca.1800MariekeHendriksen,UtrechtUniversity

11:00 Break

11:30 SessionII Chair:TimChesters

Ingenuity,Labour,Diligence:MinersandtheResilienceofMineralmatterTinaAsmussen,MaxPlanckInstitutefortheHistoryofScience,Berlin

Tangible,Pneumatic,andtheirIntermediates:FrancisBaconontheTransformationofMatterDoina-CristinaRusu,UniversityofGroningen

IngenuityintheTesting:TheDetectionofCounterfeitGemsinEarlyModernEuropeMichaelBycroft,UniversityofWarwick

13:00 Lunch

14:00 SessionIII Chair:JoséRamonMarcaida

NewWorldFeathersandtheMatterofIngenuityStefanHanß,UniversityofCambridge

“Artful”Objectsand“Indian”ProvenanceinGermanRecordsaround1600AnnaGrasskamp,HongKongBaptistUniversity/UniversityofLeiden

15:00 Break

15:30 SessionIV Chair:SietskeFransen

IngeniousHands?TouchandTechniqueinRenaissancePracticesofAnatomyViktoriavonHoffman,VillaITatti

TheArtisanalMasteryofNaturalMatterandtheHumanBodyinEarlyGermanPrintTillmannTaape,UniversityofCambridge

TheContestedIngenuitiesofBrains,Nature,andHardWorkinSeventeenth-CenturyDutchAnatomyandChymistryEvanRagland,UniversityofNotreDame

cd

Friday12May RoomSG1/2,AlisonRichardBuilding

10:00 SessionV Chair:KatherineReinhart

ForPiranesitheRomanEmpireLasteduntil1770:CreatingRomanArtefactsintheEighteenthCenturyCarolinevanEck,UniversityofCambridge

Making,WritingandThinkinginEarlyModernNurembergHannahMurphy,King’sCollegeLondon

IngeniousSundialsinItalianRenaissanceGardensDenisRibouillault,UniversityofMontreal

11:30 Earlylunch

13:00 SessionVI Chair:RaphaëleGarrod

SpiritedMatterandIngeniousNature:AccountingforChemicalChangeinEarlyModernEnglandJenniferM.Rampling,PrincetonUniversity

CraftingtheMiraculous,AnimatingAutomataChristinaNeilson,OberlinCollege

AVitalistCounterblast:RenaissanceBiotechnologyandtheCharlatan’sIngenuityinJ.E.Burggrav’sLampofLife(1611)VeraKeller,ClarkHonorsCollege,UniversityofOregon

14:30 Break

15:00 IngenuityintheMaking:AConversationwithSvenDupréandTimIngold(UniversityofAberdeen)

Chair:AlexanderMarr

16:00 Concludingremarks

cd

AbstractsIngenuity,labour,diligence:minersandtheresilienceofmineralmatterTinaAsmussen,MaxPlanckInstitutefortheHistoryofScience,BerlinSilver,copper,andleadminingexperiencedaveritableboomintheOreMountains,theHarzMountains,andtheTyroleanAlpsfromthesecondhalfofthefifteenthcentury.MiningrangedamongthemostimportantdrivingforcesbehindeconomicandtechnologicaldynamicsinearlymodernEurope.Butintheearlymodernperiod–andstilltoday–miningwasregardedwithparticularambivalence.Ontheonehanditwasseenasanevilforce:themineswereperceivedassitesofdeath,devastationandpollution.Ontheotherhandminingbecameanemblemofprogressandinnovation:technicalinnovationandmechanizationwerefundamentalhallmarksofearlymodernminingandoreprocessing.Miningmanuscriptsandprintedmanualsarefilledwithmanifoldinventionsofhumanindustryandingenuity.Practicesofprospecting,extractingandproceedingoresaredescribedandillustratedingreatdetail,justastheuseofvarioustoolsandtheconstructionofcomplexmechanicaldevices,assayfurnacesandcrucibles.Buttheseinventionsandinnovationsdidnotchangethenatureofminingfrombeingdependenton“sweatandbloodsourwork”(schweißundblutsawrearbeit).Ourmodernunderstandingseeslabourassolitary,repetitiveandalienating.Incontrast,mypaperhistoricisesbodilylabourattheseminingsitesandanalysesthepracticesofmakingandtheingenioustechniquesofassayers,engineersandminersasdependentonbodilyandmentaldispositions,suchasindustry,fatigue,perseveranceanddiligence.

TheserequiretheindustryofthemostingeniousArtificer[…]”:TheMakingoftheIngeniousArtifexandArtificersinEarlyModern‘Manuals’(1540-1662)JennyBoulboullé,UtrechtUniversityThispaperexplorestheconstructionoftheingeniousartifexandartificerinhow-tobooksthatcirculatedwidelyinearlymodernEurope.Iwillfocusonprintbooks,firstpublishedbetween1540-1662,thatwereconcernedwithmanualartsandsciences(artandcrafttechnologies,mold-andmetalmaking,practicalhistoryandphilosophyofnature).Severalcasestudieswillbediscussed.“Ingenious”is,forexample,amuchusedconceptintheEnglishtranslationofDellaPorta’sMagiaNaturalis(Lat.1558,ext.edition1589,EnglishNaturalMagick1658)whereitiscloselylinkedtomanualexpertise,practicalknow-how,andcunningoperationsfortheexplorationandcreationofnaturalmarvels.DellaPorta’s‘handbook’fortheearlymodern“artifex”,becameatruebestsellerinearlymodernEuropewhereitwasprintedinmanyeditionsandtranslations.Howdootherauthorsandmakersofpracticalandartisanal‘manuals’frameandvalue“ingenuity”?Canwetracesemanticshifts-e.g.betweensomaticandintellectualconnotations-incomparinghow“ingenuity”isusedindiverseartisanalfields,andacrossdifferenteditionsandtranslations?Finally,mypaperalsoaimsatstimulatingdiscussionsbyaddressingmethodologicalquestions:Canwemakesenseofthisconceptinearlymodernartisanalandpracticalwritingsbytextualanalysisalone?Whatkindofperformativemethodscanweusetogainabetterunderstandingofconceptsthatappeartobedeeplyembeddedinskilledexpertise,technicalmastery,andmaterialliteracies?Ingenuityinthetesting:thedetectionofcounterfeitgemsinearlymodernEuropeMichaelBycroft,UniversityofWarwickThehistoryofpreciousstonesshowsthatingenuitywasnotjustamatterofmakingbutalsoamatteroftesting--notjustamatterofcutting,polishingandfabricatinggemsbutalsoamatterof

distinguishing,authenticatingandevaluatingthem.Quiteapartfromitsubiquityintheearlymoderncrafts,testingdeservesourattentionforthreefurtherreasons.Itconnectstheingenuityofcraftsmentotheregulationofthecrafts,sincecraftregulationsofteninvolvedtestingthequalityofmaterials.Itrevealsnewconnectionsbetweenthecrafts,naturalhistory,andnaturalphilosophy.Finally,itsuggestsonewayinwhichthepremodernconceptofingenuitymayhavedifferedfromitsmoderncounterpart,namelythatitdrewnodistinctionbetweentestersandmakers--or,toputitdifferently,nodistinctionbetweencraftsmenandconnoisseurs,betweenmodesofproductionandmodesofevaluation,orbetweenthequantityofgoodsandtheirquality.ForPiranesitheRomanEmpirelasteduntil1770:creatingRomanartefactsintheeighteenthcenturyCarolinevanEck,UniversityofCambridgeIn1769PiranesitookpartinanexcavationoftheswampofPantanello,nearHadrian'sVilla.FromthefragmentsofRomanandEgyptianstatues,cultobjectsandotherartefactshefoundtherehecreatedthreemagnificentcolossalcandelabra,twoofwhichendedupintheAshmoleanMuseum,theotherintheLouvre.Hesoldtheseobjects,forstaggeringprices,asgenuineRomanartefacts,butevenabriefcomparisonwiththeirRomanancestorsshowsthattheyareactuallyverymuchhisowncreation.Buttorejectthemsimplyasfakes,aswasdoneinthenineteenthcentury,wouldbetoosimple,andtoprojectpresent-daynotionsofauthenticity,restorationandimitationuntoPiranesi'sverydifferentworkingmethods.InmypaperIwillargueforalessanachronisticornormativeapproach,thatstartsfromPiranesi'sownideasaboutcompositionandcreation,whichareinformedbyhisunequalled,first-handknowledgeofRomanmaterialculture,butalsobyhisfascinationwiththeSecondandThirdPompeianStyles.ThesehavesufferedfromabadpresssinceVitruvius'condemnationofthemasunrealandirrational.InfacttheyexemplifyGraeco-Romanideasaboutingenuityinpictorialandartefactualcomposition.

NewWorldFeathersandtheMatterofIngenuityStefanHanß,UniversityofCambridgeThispaperreconsiderstheemotionalandaestheticsignificanceofNewWorldfeathersinearlysixteenth-centuryEurope.ThearrivalofCentralandSouthAmericanfeathersandfeather-workpromptedsheeramazementamongstEuropeans.Inseveralaccounts,Europeansexpressedtheiremotionalresponsestosuchobjectsinalanguagewhosegrammarcenteredupontheconceptof‘ingenuity’.Iexplorethemeaningsofsuchaffectiveresponsesandthegeneralemotionalappealthatfeathersandfeather-workfromtheAmericascaused,byre-approachingthematerialandvisualaestheticsofsuchobjects.Sixteenth-centuryEuropeanswerehighlytrainedinobserving,knowing,experiencingandappreciatinghowthingsweremade.EarlyEuropeanvisualaestheticsoftheingenuityofindigenousfeather-workthusgainedtheirmeaningswithinacultureofmakingthathighlyappreciatedmaterialsandcraftsknowledge.InordertoreconstructthematterofNewWorldfeathersinthe‘periodeye’(Baxandall,Rublack)ofsixteenth-centuryEurope,Iusethemicroscopeasaheuristictoolofhistoricalresearch.Digitalmicroscoping,Iargue,helpstorecalibrateourunderstandingofviewingconventionsandhencetounderstandthematteroffeathersinsixteenth-centuryEurope.Redefiningingenuityandtechniqueinarttheoryandcritique,ca.1800MariekeHendriksen,UtrechtUniversityTheterm‘ingenuity’hasalonghistoryofbeingusedinrelationtoartandcraft,andthecontrivingormakingofbothmaterialandimmaterialthingsmoregenerally,whereastheuseof‘technique’anditsinflectionstodiscusstheskillsinvolvedinartandcraftappeartobeofamorerecentdate.Afterexploringearlierdichotomiesinarttheorysuchasdiscorsoversusingegno(DaVinci),thispaperexaminestheriseoftheuseof‘technique’inGermanphilosophy,arttheoryandcriticismaround1800,andwhyitwasusedinthatcontextasacontrapositionof(amongstothers)ingenuityandgenius.Iarguethatthesedevelopmentscanbeexplainedfromadesireinthefieldsofphilosophyofperceptionandthejudgementoftastetogiveartanditsappreciationaspecial

phenomenologicalstatus,thusredefiningtheoldmind-handdichotomyintermsofingenuityandtechnique.IngeniousHands?TouchandTechniqueinRenaissancePracticesofAnatomyViktoriavonHoffman,VillaITattiThispaperexaminestheusesandmeaningsofthewordingeniuminRenaissanceanatomicalwritings.Thetechnicalskillsofthesurgeondisplayedinbeautifuldemonstrationsofdissectionsorindelicatesurgicalprocedureswerereadilydescribedasingenious.Theseskillsreliedonarefinedsenseoftouchandwerethereforeembodiedinthedissectinghand,heavilyrepresentedinthevisualcultureofanatomy.Wasthesurgeon’singenio,likehismanualexpertise,epitomizedbyhishandandlocatedinhissenseoftouch?Didthematterofthemedicalcraft–humanflesh–determinethenatureandidentityoftheseingenious‘artisansofthebody’?Didingenioencapsulatethewaysinwhichanatomycraftedthehumanbody?Byexaminingtheculturesofingenuitythatsuffusedtherealmofmedicaltechnè,thispaperwillchartthelanguagesofexperience(peritia)shapedbythesensiblebodiesofmedicalpractitioners,drawnfromrepeated–tacit–experiencesoftouchingotherbodies.AVitalistCounterblast:RenaissanceBiotechnologyandtheCharlatan’sIngenuityinJ.E.Burggrav’sLampofLife(1611)VeraKeller,ClarkHonorsCollege,UniversityofOregonObservingsurvivingKunstkammerobjects,itiseasytoimaginetheaestheticsofingenuityasthatofcold,deadmatter:thehard-edgedgeometryofturnedivorypolyhedra,theeerilyjerkymovementofautomataandetherealarrangementsofhair,feathers,andevenfetalskeletons.Farmoredifficulttorecoveristheingenuityoftheliving,bothinformerlivedexperiencesandintheevanescentspirits,finestructures,andinternalmovementsthatvanishwiththepassingoflife.J.E.Burggrav’sLampofLife,aboutapurportedsympatheticlampfueledbyhumanblood,setsoutanalternativevisionofingenuity:hot,viscous

andalive.Burggravchampionedthefusionofmechanicalinventionsandthelivingbody,notonlyasameansofdevelopingpowerfulnewdevices,butalsoinordertoreformthemedicalcurriculumanddevelopthehumancapacityforingenuitymoregenerally.Heembracedthechargeofchymicalcharlatanryheexpectedtoreceive(anddid).Natureherselfoperatedasacharlatan,anditwasuptothestudentofnaturetotrainhimselftofollowhertricks.Io’sHoofandtheOriginsofLetters:IngenuityandInventioninGeofroyTory’sChampFleuryof1529AndrewMorrall,BardGraduateCenterChampFleury,publishedin1529bytheFrenchhumanist,GeofroyTory,isinpartatypographicmanualthatatitsheartlaysouttheauthor’suniquemethodofmathematicallyconstructing“antique”capitalletters.Yetitisalsoamoralandallegoricaltreatiseinthetraditionofmedievalcommentaries,remarkableforthecorrespondencesitdrawsbetweenproperlyproportionedletters,themoralvirtues,theidealhumanbodyandthecosmos.Finally,itisalsoahumanisttract,strikingasameditationupontheoriginoflettersandoftheirsignificanceintheworld,asinitsconcernforthepurityandimprovementoftheFrenchlanguage.Ataperiodwhenmanyartistsandcraftsmenwereseekingtoallytheirworkwiththeliberalartscursus,Tory,whowasbothprinteranddesigneroflettertypesandteacherandeditorofhumanisttexts,providesausefulparadigmforthewayscraftpracticeandbooklearningcametogether.ThistalkwillexamineGeofroyTory’sself-proclaimedingenuityincombiningmathematicalconstructionandallegoricalinventionasameans,ashesawit,ofdiscoveringpreviouslyundiscoveredtruths.CraftingtheMiraculous,AnimatingAutomataChristinaNeilson,OberlinCollegeSculptureswithmovablebodypartsappearedduringthelateMiddleAgesandtheirappealcontinuedforcenturies.Witharmsthatcouldfold,legsthatcouldbend,headsthatcouldnod,eyesthatcouldroll,

andtonguesthatcouldmove,thesefigurescloselyapproximatedthatwhichtheyrepresented—livingthings.Theabilityofthesesculpturestomovesuggestedtheyhadcometolife,butthiscapacitywasdependentonmakers,whoappliedleather,parchmentorpolychromedgessolikeskinoveracorpusofwoodwithjointsrenderedtoenablemovement.Thispaperwilladdresswhatitmeantforanartisttomaketheseimagesandexplorehowthemaker’sskillintersectedwiththeirobject’sabilitytobecomeanimated.TheContestedIngenuitiesofBrains,Nature,andHardWorkinSeventeenth-CenturyDutchAnatomyandChymistryEvanRaglan,UniversityofNotreDameFromthelate1630s,innovativeDutchphysicianstooksideswithHarveyintheheatedcontroversywithCartesiansovertheactionoftheheart,graftedinchymicalmedicinefromVanHelmont,Glauber,andtheirownlaboratorywork,andthenrosetoprominenceasmedicalprofessorsandclinicalpractitionersinthe1660s.Theircomplexandcompetitiveexperimentalistculturedisplaysarangeofusesofingenium,fromClassicaltopoitostraightforwardpraiseandmockingirony.Inthispaper,Isketchtherangeofmeaningsofingeniumandrelatedtermsinthiscontextandarguethattheyassembledaroundthreemaintypes:ingenuityofthebrainormindalone,ofnature,andoflongexperienceinanatomicalandchymicalwork.IshowthattheyconsistentlyrejectedandridiculedtheCartesianinsistenceonapriorispeculations.Instead,physicianssuchasJohannesWalaeus,FranciscusDeleBoëSylvius,andtheirstudentssuchasRegnierdeGraafreliedonlongexperienceandbodily,sensoryengagementwithanatomicalstructuresandchymicalactivity.Onlythroughsuchhardworkcouldinvestigatorsdeveloptheirowningeniumtomatchtheacuityofnature.Thisstanceappearswidelyamongearlymodernanatomists,asexamplesfromWilliamHarveytoThomasBartholinshow.EvenlatercriticswhorejectedtheLeidenacid-alkalisystemcelebratedtheiranatomicalandexperimentalingenuity.Finally,IsuggestthatanunfinishedsketchofDeGraafatworkdissectingpointstoparallelsbetweentheingenuityofartistsandanatomists.

SpiritedMatterandIngeniousNature:AccountingforChemicalChangeinEarlyModernEnglandJenniferM.Rampling,PrincetonUniversityInalchemicaltreatisesandrecipes,chemicalchangeisoftenexplainedwithreferencetoa“mineralvirtue”or“vegetable”propertypresentinnaturalsubstances,which,throughthe“ingeniousoperations”ofnature,bringsaboutmaterialtransformation.Thesematerialvirtuesmightinturnbeharnessedbyhumaningenuity.ThispaperexploreshowalchemistsinearlyTudorEnglandengagedwiththeingenuityofnatureinordertosolvepressingpracticalproblems.Howmightthe“virtue”beisolatedfromsubstanceswithverydifferentphysicalproperties–fromvitriolandmercurytovinegaranddistilledwine?Howcouldmineralsubstancesbeinducedto“grow”likeplants?Andhowmightpatronsbepersuadedtoinvestinsuchtechniques?Tothesewemightaddourown,modernquestions,askingtowhatextentourrecognitionofpractitioners’creativityandexpertisehasbeenmaskedbytheiremphasisonnature’spowers.AsIshallargue,alchemistsinfactdemonstratedremarkableingenuityinmanipulatingbothmatterandtheirowntextualsources.IngeniousSundialsinItalianRenaissanceGardensDenisRibouillault,UniversityofMontrealDuringtheRenaissance,gardenswereconsideredtheidealplaceforthedisplayofingegno.Thedisplayofingenuityinagardenwasexpectedandappreciatedbyitsvisitors,whowereeagertodemonstratetheirabilitytounderstandanddiscussthelearnedconceitspresentedtotheminthegarden.Suchdisplayofingegno,fundamentallylinkedwithsociabilityandconversazione,evenbecameamarkerofnobilityandafiercecompetitiontookplacebetweengardenowners.Atamoregenerallevel,ingegnoprimarilyreferredtothecompetitionbetweenmanandnature.Itwastheartist,craftsmanorengineer’scapacitytoplay,equalorevensurpasstheworkofnaturethatwasdeemedmostdelightful.Inthispaper,ItrytosummarizecontemporaryattitudestowardsthedisplayofingegnoinItalianRenaissancegardensbypaying

specificattentiontotheuse,materialityanddisplayofgardensundials,acategoryofobjectsthathasbeenlargelyforgottenbutthatepitomizesthequestforingenuityintheearlymodernperiod.Tangible,pneumatic,andtheirintermediates:FrancisBacononthetransformationofmatterDoina-CristinaRusu,UniversityofGroningenFrancisBacon’snaturalphilosophyisgroundeduponadistinctionbetweentangibleandpneumaticmatter.Whiletheformerisdense,inactive,andinert,thelatter,alsocalled‘spirits’,israre,activeandthecauseofallvisiblephenomena.Thismeansofcoursethatspiritsarewhathastobe‘manipulated’inordertoperformchangesuponnaturalandartificialbodies.Whiletheconnectionandcommunicationbetweenthesetwotypesofmattercanseemproblematic,thispaperclaimsthatthedifficultycanbesolvedbythefactthatforBacontangibleandpneumaticchangeintoeachother.Moreover,animportantroleisplayedbytheintermediatestates,suchasvapoursandexhalations.ThesedifferentstatesofmatterrepresentthekeytounderstandBacon’sexperimentalmethod,whichaimsatdiscoveringthemandaccumulatingknowledgeaboutmatter.Further,thisknowledgeshouldbeusedforthebenefitofhumankind.TheartisanalmasteryofnaturalmatterandthehumanbodyinearlyGermanprintTillmannTaape,UniversityofCambridgeHieronymusBrunschwig’smanualsonsurgeryanddistillationareamongtheearliestprintedworksonpracticalmedicine.Writtenbyacraftsmanratherthanascholar,theyarticulateamaterialworldoffragilehumanbodies,obstinatematterresistingtheeffortsofhumanart,andelusivehealing‘spirits’trappedtherein.ThispaperexploreshowBrunschwigengageswithbodies,materialsandprocessesthroughhands-onmanipulationandsensoryexperience,touncoveranartisanalmentalityofmakingandhealingbetweentheembodiedexpertiseofendlessrepetitionandquickresponsiveactioninmedicalemergencies.Italso

showshowtheinnovativeuseofavailableprintingtechnologyaidsthecommunicationoftechnicalknowledgeandartisanalexpertise.

Participants

Convenors TimChesters UniversityofCambridge tc435@cam.ac.ukRaphaeleGarrod UniversityofCambridge rf234@cam.ac.ukJoséRamonMarcaida UniversityofCambridge jrm213@cam.ac.ukAlexanderMarr UniversityofCambridge ajm300@cam.ac.ukRichardOosterhoff UniversityofCambridge ro289@cam.ac.uk SpeakersandChairs TinaAsmussen MPI,HistoryofScience,Berlin tasmussen@mpiwg-berlin.mpg.deJennyBoulboullé UtrechtUniversity j.b.boulboulle@uu.nlMichaelBycroft UniversityofWarwick M.Bycroft@warwick.ac.ukSvenDupré UtrechtUniversityandUniversity

ofAmsterdams.g.m.dupre@uu.nl

CarolinevanEck UniversityofCambridge cav35@cam.ac.ukSietskeFransen UniversityofCambridge sf547@cam.ac.ukAnnaGrasskamp HongKongBaptist

University/UniversityofLeidenannagrasskamp@hkbu.edu.hk

StefanHanß UniversityofCambridge sh885@cam.ac.ukMariekeHendriksen UtrechtUniversity m.m.a.hendriksen@uu.nlViktoriavonHoffmann VillaITatti n/aTimIngold UniversityofAberdeen tim.ingold@abdn.ac.ukVeraKeller ClarkHonorsCollege,Universityof

Oregonvkeller@uoregon.edu

AndrewMorrall BardGraduateCenter morrall@bgc.bard.eduHannahMurphy King’sCollegeLondon hannah.murphy@kcl.ac.ukChristinaNeilson OberlinCollege Christina.Neilson@oberlin.eduEvanRagland UniversityofNotreDame eragland@nd.eduJenniferM.Rampling PrincetonUniversity rampling@princeton.eduKatieReinhart UniversityofCambridge kmr55@cam.ac.ukDenisRibouillault UniversityofMontreal denis.ribouillault@umontreal.caDoina-CristinaRusu UniversityofGroningen d.rusu@rug.nlTillmannTaape UniversityofCambridge tillmann.taape@cantab.net Delegates SpikeBucklow UniversityofCambridge sb10029@cam.ac.ukPaddyBullard UniversityofReading p.s.bullard@reading.ac.ukTatinaBur UniversityofCambridge tcdb2@cam.ac.ukAnyaBurgon UniversityofCambridge aejb2@cam.ac.ukRaymondCarlson ColumbiaUniversity rc2872@columbia.eduIreneCooper UniversityofCambridge n/aMayaCorry UniversityofCambridge mc878@cam.ac.ukRaffaeleDanna UniversityofCambridge rd533@cam.ac.ukLorrainedelaVerpillière UniversityofCambridge lhbms2@cam.ac.ukAmandineDidouan UniversityofCambridge n/aAmparoFontaine UniversityofCambridge af504@cam.ac.ukLydiaHamlett UniversityofCambridge lkh25@cam.ac.uk

MatthewHowles ScienceMuseum n/aFrancesHughes UniversityofCambridge fh298@cam.ac.ukBorisJardine UniversityofCambridge bj210@cam.ac.ukEmmaJones Independent ejj32@cam.ac.ukAnnabelJudd ScienceMuseum n/aAllisonKsiazkiewicz UniversityofCambridge allison.ksiazkiewicz@cantab.netSachikoKusukawa UniversityofCambridge sk111@cam.ac.ukAleksanderMusial UniversityofCambridge am2231@cam.ac.ukNaciemNikkhah UniversityofCambridge nn283@cam.ac.ukJenniferOliver UniversityofOxford jennifer.oliver@sjc.ox.ac.ukVivienPerutz UniversityofCambridge vap22@cam.ac.ukNydiaPineda QueenMary,UniversityofLondon n.pinedadeavila@qmul.ac.ukLaiaPortetCodina UniversityofCambridge lp466@cam.ac.ukUlinkaRublack UniversityofCambridge ucr10@cam.ac.ukJasonScott-Warren UniversityofCambridge jes1003@cam.ac.ukTessaStorey Tessastorey@googlemail.comElizabethL.Swann UniversityofCambridge es663@cam.ac.ukRebeccaTropp UniversityofCambridge n/aUmbertoVeronesi UniversityCollegeLondon umberto.veronesi.13@ucl.ac.ukMarkThomasYoung UniversityofBergen Mark.Young@fof.uib.noValerioZanetti UniversityofCambridge vz218@cam.ac.uk

Notes