In the last decades, the notion of “economy” has gained a central importance in accounts of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century experimental culture. As several studies have shown, scientific research was then intertwined with artisanal practice, as well as with everyday life activities that took place in the household. Chemists, for instance, worked regularly at home, exchanged knowledge and materials with apothecaries, and engaged in the improvement of cooking techniques. In this sense, early modern scientific knowledge was not merely a theoretical exercise but was also shaped by an economic concern, namely an interest in making the most of the available resources to promote the welfare of the family or society. Economy is here intended in the sense of the ancient Greek word oikonomia—literally “household management” (Leshem Reference Leshem2016, 225)—and sometimes spelled oeconomy in current scholarship to mark a clear-cut distinction from the post-Enlightenment market economy (Werrett Reference Werrett2019, 8).
Not only were experimenters concerned with quotidian practices, but housekeepers and artisans also had scientific interests and conducted experiments. As far as housekeepers are concerned, for instance, multiple textbooks instructing them on how to run the household contained elements of scientific knowledge. A classic example of such an economic treatise is John Perkins’ Every Woman Her Own House-Keeper, originally published in 1696 and reprinted multiple times during the eighteenth century. In the preface to the fourth edition (1796), the editor stressed that “the intention of the following work is to present the female sex with a complete body of information, respecting the conduct and arrangement of their domestic concerns” (Perkins 1796, iii). Alongside instructions to perform some technical operations useful in the domestic space—such as “a practical system of cookery,” including rules for “pickling, preserving, distilling”—Perkins also provided his readers with basic scientific notions, namely “the culinary and medical properties of all fruits, vegetables” and the “first rules of arithmetic” (ibid., iv–vi).
Recent scholarship has particularly emphasized the place of materiality in economic literature. To be both a skilled experimenter and a good householder one ought to be “thrifty,” namely—in the words of Simon Werrett (Reference Werrett2019, 6)—to find a “balance between buying new and using old things, between spending and saving and making the most of the resources you already had.” In the much-reprinted treatise Œconomie générale de la campagne, ou nouvelle maison rustique, published by the agronomist Louis Liger in two volumes in 1700, “economy” was defined as “the art of following an order, such that in the government of the things entrusted to us, or which we possess, there is nothing that … does not make much profit” (Liger Reference Liger1700, 2). The “things” mentioned by Liger included, for instance, the utensils to be found in a kitchen, also potentially useful to set up an experiment. An enlightening example of this multifaceted nature of things is provided by the chemist William Henry in the handbook An Epitome of Chemistry (1801). While addressing the apparatus used for chemical practice, Henry advised the reader that to carry out the experiments described in the book, “and even for the prosecution of new and important inquiries,” very few technical instruments were needed:
[…] some of the most interesting chemical facts may be exhibited with the aid merely of Florence flasks, of common vials, and of wine glasses. In converting these to the purposes of apparatus, a considerable saving of expense will accrue to the experimentalist; and he will avoid the encumbrance of various instruments, the value of which consists in show, rather than in real utility. (Henry [1801] Reference Henry1808, 12–13; cited in Werrett Reference Werrett, Roberts and Werrett2018, 39)
While primarily concerned with the domestic space, economic science could also encompass broader social practices. As Emma Spary (Reference Spary2014, 11) has shown, a central concern for eighteenth-century “economists” was to find “the most economic ways of managing resources, from food and heat to labour and raw materials” in contexts as diverse as “laboratories, fields, manufactories and institutions.” Early modern scientists were not only interested in theoretical elaborations and experimental trials but were also willing to explore the technical applications of their ideas, sometimes going so far as to elaborate plans of social reform, or to launch entrepreneurial projects. An example of this facet of economy is provided by the history of the digester, a machine invented by Robert Boyle’s laboratory assistant Denis Papin in the late 1670s. This device was a rudimentary pressure cooker that could be used to extract from the production scraps of butchery—mostly beef bones—an edible jelly, which served as the basis for preparing an inexpensive and nourishing soup. During the eighteenth century, philanthropists from all over Europe employed the digester to cook large quantities of food in the framework of institutional projects for poverty relief. As many of the digester’s users emphasized, the employment of this machine allowed practitioners to make a responsible use of the available material resources—namely to be thrifty—in the preparation of collective meals (Storni Reference Storni2021). The example of the digester shows that the principles of economy could also be applied on a wider scale than the oikos. As Spary (Reference Spary2014, 11) nicely puts it, “économie became a fruitful programme for scientific reformers mediating between consumers and governments.”
So far, historians of eighteenth-century economic science have primarily focused on the repurposing and recycling of materials, namely on economy as a virtue of the skilled experimenter. In this paper, I will move away from an analysis of economy as a “moral virtue” of practitioners, and will rather consider it as a quality enacted by technology. As we shall see, technology—particularly machines—could actualize the principles of economy in its performance, and its “degree of economy” could be quantified. In this sense, I will also argue that thrift did not merely develop as an informal culture in the household but was also the subject of more formal inquiries conducted by authoritative savants. Issues relating to economy, therefore, were not only approached through a sort of practical wisdom, but also became problems of “official science.”Footnote 1 This phenomenon is part of the early modern process of codification of practical knowledge (Valleriani Reference Valleriani and Valleriani2017) that paved the way for the emergence of a modern technology, shaped by the epistemic norms of exact sciences.
The question can then be raised about the relevant criteria to define a technology as economic, as well as of how the degree of economy of a technology could be measured. In what follows, I will suggest that one of the key parameters that were used to quantify economy was the temporal duration of an artifact’s performance. In other words, I will argue that “time thrift” played a central role in the scientific and technological culture of economy.Footnote 2 Preliminary clarifications are due on the very notion of time thrift, as well as on the criteria adopted in the selection of the historical sources on which my argument relies. The expression “time thrift” was notably used by Edward P. Thompson in the seminal article “Time, Work-Discipline, and Industrial Capitalism” (1967). Thompson described time thrift as a form of work discipline imposed on workers by capitalists, who aimed to enhance their employees’ productivity and reduce time waste insofar as synonymous with financial loss. Thompson’s definition echoed the classical appraisal of time thrift provided by Benjamin Franklin in the famous piece of Advice to a Young Tradesman, Written by an Old One (1748): “In short, the way to wealth … depends chiefly on two words, industry and frugality; i.e., waste neither time not money, but make the best use of both” (reprinted in Fisher Reference Fisher1753, 388). Time thrift, however, was for Franklin a positive quality of the businessman, and not a discipline typical of “mature industrial societies of all varieties” (Thompson Reference Thompson1967, 93) shaped by a logic of domination and profit.
The notion of time thrift that I adopt in this paper differs from Thompson’s (and Franklin’s), as it refers first and foremost to a measurable parameter—namely, not a form of discipline or a personal quality, but a function subject to quantification—that was of crucial importance for early modern artisans in designing new devices. A technology could be considered economic only if its action was comparatively longer or shorter—depending on its intended function—than concurrent technologies. Time thrift, however, also played a key role as an epistemic principle in the evaluation of innovation by academic experts, often charged with judging inventions before they entered the market (cf. Hilaire-Pérez Reference Hilaire-Pérez2000, 51–109). As we shall see, while evaluating the economic potential of an artifact, scientists often based their judgment on a quantification of its temporal performance. Lastly, the notion of time thrift is helpful to understand the strategies for implementing technical procedures on a manufacturing scale, elaborated by early modern scientists and artisans willing to become entrepreneurs. Here, time thrift was not only a form of work discipline imposed on workers à la Thompson, but also a principle on which the very organization of production was based. To make good use of time was a sign of the ingenuity of the practitioner-entrepreneur, and was primarily synonymous with reducing the waste of materials—that is, time thrift was the key to an “ecology of practice.”Footnote 3 This is not to say that there were no cases in which the excessive acceleration of performance caused a waste of resources, prefiguring the tension—typical of the modern consumerist society—between quick production of goods in great quantities and sensibility to ecological problems.
The growing emphasis on time thrift was part of a broader transformation in eighteenth-century scientific and technical culture that brought the practical, and often informal, knowledge of craftsmen closer to the spheres of formal science and of industry. On the one hand, the concern for temporal efficiency contributed to codify the artisans’ know-how and make it a subject of scientific inquiry. The quantification of temporal performance also set new standards for the operation of technological artifacts, with which artisans had to comply if they wished to be successful. On the other hand, the increasing centrality of time thrift also had consequences on the sphere of production. In the second half of the eighteenth century, manufacturing activities were increasingly submitted to rigid technical protocols, based on the rigorous quantification of resources and products, as well as of the duration of procedures. Far from the slow pace of artisanal and domestic work, the concern for temporal efficiency driving manufacturing activities prefigures the dynamics of the emerging industrial system, where acceleration became a key to profit.Footnote 4
The growing centrality of time thrift in the scientific, technical, and production sphere was also related to changes in the material culture of timekeeping. By the mid eighteenth century, the precision of mechanical clocks had reached high levels, and their use was common to various disciplines, spanning from astronomy to practical medicine (Bernasconi Reference Bernasconi2019). At the same time, timepieces of various sorts started to circulate widely in Western societies, as has been clarified by research conducted on early modern probate inventories in England and France (Glennie and Thrift Reference Glennie and Thrift2009; Dequidt Reference Dequidt2014). Mechanical clocks and watches became popular even beyond the scientific elites and the upper social classes, and were widespread among the members of the middle class. In the context of such a “temporalization of society” (Giesen Reference Giesen, Haferkamp and Neil1992), saving time increasingly came to be perceived as a social virtue, and time waste as equally deplorable as the waste of any other material resource.
As regards the sources used for my analysis, I will mainly focus on eighteenth-century France—although I will draw some parallels with Britain—and rely on documents that concern the question of fire management. This issue is particularly relevant as the difficulty of managing fire prompted a rationalization of the parameters useful to govern its action, among which is time.Footnote 5 Moreover, the use of fire was common to manifold scientific, technical and everyday life practices (chemistry, pharmacy, glassmaking, cookery, etc.), and was also central to economic and proto-ecological reflections on consumption and waste, particularly of wood and coal, of crucial importance in an age constantly threatened with a dearth of fuel supplies.Footnote 6
In the first section, I will consider a few papers submitted by inventors to the Paris Academy of Sciences as well as the evaluations produced by qualified members of the institution on the inventors’ proposals. The selected papers concern machines intended for domestic or artisanal use; more specifically, they deal with cooking and lighting, two pressing social needs that continuously attracted the attention of scientists and artisans throughout the early modern period (see, e.g., Crowley Reference Crowley2001). In the second section, I will present some expert reports on manufactories—distilleries, more specifically—that provide information on the technical procedures implemented by entrepreneurs. Distillation, just like cooking and lighting, is a technique based on the action of fire that was equally relevant to scientists (especially chemists), artisans (apothecaries, distillers, etc.), and household practitioners.Footnote 7 Besides the multiplicity of figures who engaged in distillation, this practice was also one of the first chemical and artisanal operations to enter the manufacturing and commercial sphere. In the eighteenth-century, to meet the ever-growing demand for spirits, not only were countless distilleries established all over Europe, but there was also continual research to improve distillation techniques for manufacturing purposes, as the great number of patents granted in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries to distillers-entrepreneurs testifies.Footnote 8
1. Time thrift and household technologies
In his Essai philosophique sur la technologie, the early nineteenth-century philosopher Léon Lalanne listed the benefits of technology for human beings and society. Besides the enhancement of productive forces, the transformation of common goods into valuable ones, and the economy of materials, Lalanne mentioned the economy of time. As he wrote, “the economy of time has so important and great consequences for human beings, that most of the advantages of machines could be summarized under this heading” (Lalanne Reference Lalanne1840, 36). The same remark can be found in coeval British sources, such as the writings of the polymath Charles Babbage. In the essay On the Economy of Machinery and Manufactures, Babbage (Reference Babbage1832, 21) stated: “The economy of human time is the next advantage of machinery in manufactures. So extensive and important is this effect, that we might, if we were inclined to generalize, embrace almost all the advantages under this single head.” These examples show that time economy was considered by nineteenth-century commentators as a major advantage of technology, especially of machines. In this section, I will argue that temporal efficiency was considered a key element to assess the “economic power” of a device, and its potential to enhance the quality of life, already in the previous century.
To shed light on the role of time thrift in the production as well as in the evaluation of innovation in the eighteenth century, I will consider two examples of “economic machines,” one for cooking and one for lighting, presented to the Paris Academy of Sciences. The choice of this institution is motivated by its centrality in the scientific landscape of early modern Europe.Footnote 9 Not only did the Academy encourage cutting-edge research in several fields of science, but it also provided expert advice on inventions (Jones Reference Jones2008, 139–41; Van Damme Reference Van Damme2020, 41–46). Inventors could freely submit a proposal or a machine model to the Academy, which charged a board of academicians with examining it, and based on the expert assessment gave or refused its approval: a positive answer could foster the diffusion of the invention in society, and the success of the inventor as an entrepreneur. The choice of the two inventions is motivated by the fact that cooking and lighting were central topics in debates on economic and useful knowledge at the Academy.Footnote 10 This emerges clearly from the number of inventions and proposals dedicated to cooking and lighting in the period 1699–1793, which is over thirty-five.Footnote 11 Moreover, among the academic papers in both fields, the files examined here are among the most complete.
In July 1739, François Fresneau presented to the Academy the model of a portable oven. After working as a physician in the navy, and as a surgeon in hospitals, Fresneau started on his career as inventor and entrepreneur in Charleville, in the north-east of France. The portable oven was the first invention he presented to the Paris Academy. In their report on Fresneau’s oven, the naturalist René-Antoine Ferchault de Réaumur, the chemist Jean Hellot, and the head of the Postes et Relais de France, and honorary member of the Academy, Louis-Léon Pajot comte d’Ons-en-Bray, stated that the machine was meant to “use one fire for all cooking operations” and thus “reduce considerably the consumption of wood and coal.”Footnote 12 The small size of the oven made it suitable for domestic use, but also for other contexts, such as long-distance navigation and military campaigns. The academicians explained that by means of Fresneau’s oven one could prepare:
In three hours, twelve or thirteen types of dishes such as soup, different stews, a roasted beef steak of 15 to 16 pounds …. The preparation of all these dishes, which could feed ten to twelve people, only required the three quarters of a fallourde [a small woodpile] over three hours; one would have needed almost the double of this low-quality wood only to roast the beef steak in a traditional fireplace. (AAS, PS, July 1739, fol. 1v)
While the reviewers underscored the device’s capacity to perform multiple operations at once, and the economy of fuel it could afford, in presenting his work to the Academy Fresneau had put a special emphasis on the economy of time. In fact, Fresneau’s paper on the invention provided details not only on one model of portable oven—the one examined by the academic board—but also on several other machines useful “to save wood and time in cooking, pharmacy, and chemistry” (ibid., fol. 1r) that were produced in his atelier at Charleville. Fresneau, for instance, talked about a smaller version of his portable oven, called “la cuisine du solitaire” (the loner kitchen) which could perform a variety of cooking operations—to boil, roast, etc.—with “very little consumption” (ibid.). Moreover, this second model of portable oven was endowed with a canalization system that kept heat from dispersion and guaranteed “enough warmth to protect from cold for seven to eight hours” (ibid.), namely it also had a heating function. The hot air produced by the oven could also be transferred to a greenhouse “to grow even during the coldest winters all sorts of plants and flowers,” as well as to grow “by means of a special topsoil … an excellent salad in six hours, and hatch any sort of eggs without the need of females” (ibid.).Footnote 13 Fresneau also produced copies of already existing machines, which corresponded to his ideal of fuel and time economy. One was the digester, which allowed “in a very short time to soften the hardest bones” with which to prepare “a savory soup in 25 or 30 minutes” (ibid., fol. 2r). Another was a device invented by the alchemist Johann Rudolph Glauber with which “one can prepare all sorts of drinks without boilers in very little time, and with a considerable saving of wood” (ibid., fol. 2r). In sum, while presenting his inventions, Fresneau insisted on the power of technology in saving time in the execution of quotidian operations such as cooking, or of enhancing the duration of certain benefits deriving from fire, namely heating. The economy of time was tightly associated with that of fuel, which could be particularly relevant—as Fresneau stated in the conclusion of the paper—to improve the life conditions of “families and small communities” (ibid, fol. 3r).
In 1743, Fresneau wrote a placet to the Comte d’Argenson, Secretary of State for War, to defend his work against Charles-Thomas Beauvisage de Lavault, who had plagiarized—or so Fresneau claimed—a new version of Fresneau’s 1739 portable oven. The improved oven was realized in laminated metal, it could be structured on one or multiple levels, and represented for Fresneau a new frontier of thrift, especially from the perspective of time economy: the new oven could indeed “bake bread … with very little wood consumption, and three or even four times faster than the cooking in ordinary ovens” (Fresneau Reference Fresneau1743, 4). Lavault had become an associate of Fresneau but had then stolen the prototype of the new oven and presented it to the public as his own invention. In the plea to the Comte d’Argenson, Fresneau also announced that he was about to submit to the Paris Academy a model of the new oven, further improved with respect to the one appropriated by Lavault.
The Paris Academy received the machine on April 3, 1743, and sent Réaumur, Hellot, and d’Ons-en-Bray to see the oven at work on May 8 in the atelier of Lucotte, the Parisian blacksmith who had built the oven, in his workshop on Rue du Grand-Chantier (nowadays a part of Rue des Archives). The academicians began their report by noticing that Fresneau’s aim was to “multiply the batches of bread so much that, in a time lapse of 8 to 9 hours, with a small wood consumption, one could cook more bread than in 24 hours in a normal oven.”Footnote 14 The first experiment made with Fresneau’s oven was as follows: fire was started “at 4:38 PM,” and the oven was warm enough to cook bread (33 cubes of dough, making 66 portions) at 5:35 PM; “at 6:38 PM, namely 63 minutes later,” the bread was ready, although 17 breads out of 33 were overcooked (AAS, PV, May 8, 1743).Footnote 15 The second experiment was similar to the first: after the first trial, more wood was put inside the oven and fire was reactivated “in only 6 minutes” (at 6:50 PM); 24 cubes of dough were cooked by 8:04 PM, viz. “in 1 hour 8 minutes,” although the cooking was delayed (“likely of 8 or 10 minutes”) by a heavy rain that had cooled the oven (ibid.). The conclusion drawn from these experiments by the academicians was not entirely positive. Whilst Fresneau’s oven could be useful, especially for the army, as “there will be a gain of time, since one must wait only a few minutes between two batches,” no relevant economy of fuel was noticed (ibid.). Furthermore, other disadvantages were given by the material components of the oven, which easily got rusty.
The academic report shows the attempt to assess the time and fuel economy of Fresneau’s invention on a scientific basis, namely relying on reiterated experiments and accurate quantification. While the wood was not weighed, the duration of the technical procedures was registered with an outstanding precision. In the hands of academic experts, time thrift became a key epistemic principle for evaluating innovation. To measure the duration of a machine’s performance was in fact essential to rationalize the economic potential of a new technology, and thereby evaluate its social utility and potential sphere of application.
The second case study relating to time thrift and domestic technologies examined here is that of Léger’s economic wicks (mèches économiques).Footnote 16 Before the advent of gaslighting, the lighting of domestic and public spaces relied essentially on oil lamps. In this field, the major advance of the eighteenth-century is often considered to be the Argand lamp, namely a lamp elaborated between 1782 and 1784 by the Swiss scientist and artisan François-Pierre-Amédée (best known as Ami or Aimé) Argand.Footnote 17 The Argand lamp featured a sleeve-shaped wick allowing air to pass through and around it, encircled by a cylindrical glass chimney, which enhanced the air flow; the flame was smokeless and much brighter than existing lamps, but also safer because enclosed (Wolfe Reference Wolfe1999, 21–22, 60–61). At the time when he invented this lamp, Argand’s main competitor in France was Léger, who in 1782 had obtained the Paris Academy’s approval for his economic wicks (Hilaire-Pérez Reference Hilaire-Pérez2000, 279). Both Argand and Léger aimed at reducing the oil consumption of lamps, especially since the price of oil had been continuously growing throughout the century (Castelluccio Reference Castelluccio2016, 14), and assuring light for as long as possible. In presenting his invention to the Paris Academy on February 27, 1782, Léger stressed that the new wicks were characterized by “convenience, hygiene, economy” (AAS, PS, February 27, 1782, fol. 1r). The wicks were “made of braided cotton cord,” could have “different diameters and shapes, namely round or flat,” and were “drenched in an oily substance whose smell is not unpleasant, and rather slightly aromatic” (AAS, PS, September 4, 1782, fol. 1r). They could be used with the least expensive types of oil, never produced smoke nor bad smells, and were capable of “enhancing the clarity of whichever lighting, without increasing the expense” (AAS, PS, February 27, 1782, fol. 1r). Léger insisted on the long-lasting action of the wicks—“[they] last twelve hours, or even fourteen, with a quarter of a pound (quarteron) of oil” (ibid.)—which combined an economy of time (now in the sense of a prolongation of duration, and not of an acceleration, as in Fresneau’s case) and of fuel. The same point is raised multiple times throughout Léger’s paper: “The economy of their [the wicks’] use is demonstrated by the most accurate experiment: a five-sou wick burns a quarter of a pound of oil in twelve hours, and can last up to three weeks”; and again: “Mr Léger’s economic wicks, employed with the least expensive oil, last twelve hours, not to say fourteen, burning only a quarter of a pound of oil” (ibid., fol. 1v). The idea of economy that emerges from Léger’s text is not only that of good management of resources and of gaining light to supplement that of the day, thanks to which one could work more or engage in other social activities—“these wicks represent a real advantage for stores, workshops, bars, restaurants, halls, and even the city lighting” (ibid.)—but also that of financial profit, insofar as the expense of the oil used for lighting could weigh significantly on the family budget.
At the end of August 1782, a board of academicians composed by the philosopher and mathematician Nicolas de Caritat marquis de Condorcet, the chemist Antoine-Laurent de Lavoisier, and the nobleman and associé libre of the Academy Nicolas-Christiern de Thy comte de Milly, tested the performance of Léger’s wicks. Four alleged advantages of the invention were to be assessed: that Léger’s wicks did not produce dark and thick smoke while burning, that they produced no bad smell, that they burnt uniformly and without oscillations of the flame, and—most importantly—“to consume less oil in a given time than ordinary lamps, and to last longer than the cotton wicks so far available” (AAS, PS, September 4, 1782, fol. 1r). To evaluate these points, the board adopted an experimental and comparative method: they conducted three experiments, where two identical lamps were filled with the same type and quantity of oil, and the only difference between the two lay in the wick—lamp 1 was endowed with one of Léger’s wicks, lamp 2 with a regular cotton wick. In the first experiment, the two lamps were lit “at 26 minutes past midnight” on August 28, 1782; lamp 1 had a “clear, uniform and gleaming flame” and emanated no smoke, while lamp 2 had a bigger flame but less stable and very smoky” (ibid., fol. 1v). Lamp 2 died out in the morning, “at 10:41,” while Lamp 1 lasted longer, until 11:15, “with a difference of 34 minutes” (ibid.). The results of the first experiment were confirmed by the second: the two lamps were lit again on August 31 at “4:33 in the morning,” they were still running at 10:50 but lamp 2 seemed to be almost suffocated; also, lamp 2 “made much smoke” while lamp 1 “no [smoke] at all” (ibid., fol. 1v–2r). These two experiments allowed the academicians to draw conclusions concerning the superiority of Léger’s wicks over regular ones with respect to three key aspects: the “more or less smoke emanated by the two lamps,” the steadiness of the flame, and the “expense of oil, comparatively, in a given time” (ibid., fol. 2r). It only remained to assess whether there was a significant difference of smell (and, although not explicitly mentioned by the reviewers, in heating power) between lamp 1 and lamp 2. The third experiment consisted in placing one lamp at a time in a small, closed room, endowed with a thermometer, and let the wick burn for some time. After eight hours, lamp 1 had produced no smell whatsoever, and had heated up the room by one degree. Lamp 2, by contrast, between midnight and 8 AM, had filled the room with dark smoke and raised the level of the thermometer by only half a degree. While formalizing the approval of the Academy for Léger’s invention, Condorcet, Lavoisier, and Milly stressed in conclusion that the new economic wicks could be profitable for “all social classes” but particularly for “the poorest class of citizens, who are rarely taken into consideration” (ibid., fol. 2v).
The academic expertise used on Léger’s wicks confirms the scientists’ intention of providing a formal definition of an invention’s economic potential, by means of experiments and measurements. In testing the performance of the wicks, time was the most accurately measured aspect of all, as it provided an objective framework to evaluate the degree of economy of the new technology. The importance of exact quantification for the academicians is also made clear by the employment of measuring tools, such as the thermometer, which contributes to objectifying the invention’s economic value.Footnote 18 Finally, the comparative approach adopted by the academic board while testing Léger’s wicks is noteworthy, as it materialized the idea of economic innovation as a competitive performance.
It is worth noticing that, after obtaining academic approval, Léger’s economic wicks had a significant diffusion across French territory—at least before the success of the Argand lamp. A notice found in the Academy archives indicates that the product was sold in twenty-one different shops and ateliers in Paris, with the main deposit and delivery center located on Rue Serpente (AAS, PS, November 19, 1783). The circulation on the national level is attested by advertisements that appeared in the local press in the months following the positive report of Condorcet, Lavoisier, and Milly. While listing the advantages of Léger’s wicks, the advertisements always mentioned the low price and healthiness of the invention, while insisting on the economy of fuel and time afforded by their use. In the Annonces et affiches de la Province du Poitou, on May 29, 1783, a short piece on the economic wicks stressed the multiplicity of their uses—“they can serve for different uses … [they can be] lamps for rooms destined for literary people and artists, and can heat up lamp furnaces for the use of chemists”—and underscored their economy: “one wick can last up to twelve days. These wicks are of modest price; a handful of the most expensive ones costs only 2 pounds.”Footnote 19 On March 29, 1783, a longer article appeared in the Gazette du Commerce where the benefit that all social classes could enjoy from using Léger’s wicks was emphasized: “they are equally good for the rich and the poor, for learned people and for artisans: everyone will find in these wicks a healthier lighting, more pleasant for sight, and less expensive than any other known lighting.”Footnote 20 The economy did not only concern the selling price of the wicks, but also the reduced oil consumption and the enhanced duration of lighting: if the user diligently followed the instructions enclosed with the wicks, “they will consume at most one or two inches [of a wick] every nine or ten hours, with half a quarter of a pound of oil. So that one wick can last twelve days” (Gazette du Commerce, March 29, 1783, 198). These examples show that even in the presentation of “economic inventions” to the public, time played a key role as it qualified the invention as economic. Drawing elements from the academic expertise—the Academy’s approval of the invention is cited in all public advertisements—the journalists insisted on the length of Léger’s wicks performance as a sign of their economy. While the temporal indications in the press articles are less accurate than in the academic reports, the product’s enactment of time thrift had a crucial role in building the commercial image of the wicks.
The notion of time thrift emerging from the study of inventions—namely as the enhancement of the performance of technology to afford parsimony, but also as a key element in the comparative evaluation of machines made by scientists to assess their utility—can be further characterized by addressing the role of time in manufacturing activities, namely in the organization of production. As we shall see, temporal efficiency was here not only pursued to foster commercial projects and increase financial profit, but also in the perspective of an ecology of materials, as well as to display the entrepreneur’s ingenuity. To explore the role of time thrift in manufacturing, I will focus on distillation practices in France and Britain, particularly on the activity of the Swiss-born inventor Ami Argand.
2. Time thrift in manufacturing: The case of distillation
The article “Distillation” in the fourth volume of the Encyclopédie defines it as “a chemical operation that consists in separating, through the action of fire, the vapors or liquids from certain materials enclosed in vessels, and retaining these [vaporous or liquid] substances in a specific vessel designed to receive them” (Venel 1754, 1054a). According to the author of the article, the famous chemist Gabriel-François Venel, distillation is “one of the most anciently known operations in the art” (Venel 1754, 1054b). Venel recalled that indications of the performance of distillation were already provided in the Jabirian corpus, that is, in the many works attributed to the so-called “father of chemistry” Jābir ibn Hayyān (Latinized as Geber, c. 721–815). Throughout the Middle Ages down to early modern times, distillation was widely employed by chemists to separate aeriform or liquid substances and study their properties, but also to prepare remedies for medical purposes. In-depth discussions of distillation are provided, for instance, in the works of eminent representatives of the Renaissance Paracelsian tradition, such as Joseph Duchesne (Quercetanus), but also in the writings of Daniel Sennert, Robert Boyle, and other leading figures of early modern science. Distillation, however, was also commonly practiced at home to make distilled waters or spirits. An important contribution to the diffusion of the knowledge of distillation techniques among a large public in the early modern age was provided by the circulation of chemical and medical treatises explaining in simple terms the principles of the art.Footnote 21
The early modern age was not only characterized by an expansion of the scientific research on distillation, and by widespread home practice, but also by the development of a manufacturing production of distillates. In this context, as Robert J. Forbes (Reference Forbes1948, 186) has clarified in his history of distillation, manufacture was not synonymous with industry tout court, but was rather “an organisation of many home-industries coupled by capital.” Distilleries flourished all over Europe, fostering the growth of an alcoholic beverages market. As of the early eighteenth century, the production of distillates grew so much in France that the country was able to compete with traditionally stronger production centers, such as the Low Countries and Scotland. The distillation entrepreneurs were not just investors who delegated the organization of production to engineers or technicians, and the manual work to employees, but were often personally involved in the production activity. One might consider the efforts made by distillery owners to improve the machinery or the technical procedures, who in most cases applied to obtain a patent for their ideas (see above, n. 8). Such efforts were not only motivated by the need to overcome competitors and increase profit, but also showed an ambition of distillers-entrepreneurs to have social and intellectual recognition for their ingenuity.Footnote 22 Time thrift in distillation, as we shall see, had this same twofold meaning: to make the most of the available time was seen as synonymous with the enhancement of production and therefore of financial gain, but was also a manifestation of ingenuity, as well as a relevant criterion to define technical excellence in terms of thriftiness over against competitors.
One of the protagonists of the distilling industry in France was Ami Argand. Born in Geneva on July 5, 1750, Argand was a student of the renowned scientist Horace-Bénédicte de Saussure, before moving to Paris in 1775 to complete his education. In France, he notably studied chemistry and collaborated with Lavoisier. While Argand’s name is mostly associated with the invention of an economic lamp, his first commercial enterprise was in distillation—in partnership with his brother Jean—following Ami’s invention of tinplated alembics (Hilaire-Pérez Reference Hilaire-Pérez2004, 91). In a letter addressed to the Directory (Directoire exécutif de la République) on 9 Floréal year V (April 28, 1797), the Argand brothers presented their ideas to “increase and improve French industry” (ANF, F12, 2268, fol. 1r). While discussing their industrial achievements, the Argands particularly emphasized the success of the distilleries they had established in the south of France, which were “grounded on new and economic principles” (ibid., fol. 1v). Not only had the quality of the products been improved—“the brandy is now renowned for its sweetness, delicacy and healthiness”—but the general economy of the manufacturing activity was remarkable: “the economy was brought to 5/6 of fuel, time, and labor [than in their competitors’ workshops]” (ibid.).
The Argand brothers established their first distillery in Valignac, near Montpellier, in 1780. In 1781, the Royal Society of Sciences of Montpellier sent some experts—the report is signed by seven academicians—to examine the Argands’ manufactory. The positive judgment of the commission on the distillery was to be the first step in the success of the two brothers in distillation, which came to an end only when Ami decided to focus his efforts on the production of lamps. The report begins with a description of the distillery, to then illustrate a series of experiments aimed to test the efficiency of the apparatus.
At the center of the workshop lay four furnaces, on each of which was placed a large alembic; the chimneys of the furnaces lay in the middle of the roof, while on the sides were located four barrels that contained the cooling coils (which conveyed the products of distillation). Since the Argands demanded that the details of their distillation method remain confidential, the examiners did not provide “an exact description of their furnaces and of their alembics.”Footnote 23 They would only explain as much as was needed to “appraise and judge their procedure, and the results of the differences between their apparatus and that which is ordinarily used to distill brandy” (ADH, D186, fol. 215v). The most innovative features of the Argands’ manufactory were the management of heat and cold and the level of automation of the machines. As regards the first point, heat was well managed thanks to the material structure of the furnaces and of the alembics. As the report states, the Argands had “a great and precise theoretical knowledge of furnaces and in general of the way of managing fire (la manière de conduire le feu) and of taking advantage of it” (ibid., fol. 216r). Consequently, not only could the entrepreneurs “reduce the consumption of fuel resources,” but more generally afford “a great economy” (ibid.) since heat was not dispersed, and its power was maximized. At the same time, the air in the workshop was not too hot, and the exhalations were not too strong, so that one could breathe inside the room easily and safely. Another major innovation relating to heat and cold consisted in the so-called “pre-heater” (Forbes Reference Forbes1948, 225). The product of distillation was conveyed through the cooling coils, located in barrels filled with wine yet to be distilled; the wine acted as the cooling liquid, and was in turn pre-heated by the distillate, reducing the time and fuel necessary for the actual distillation in the alembic.
The Argands’ distillery was also remarkable for its level of automation. A clear example of the efficiency of the system was the mechanism used to bring up the wine to be distilled at the level of the alembics:
One can roll the barrels in the workshop and empty them into the reservoirs located under the floor, … they [the Argands] have showed us the model of a machine that should bring the wine in a reservoir from where the wine could flow into the four alembics. This machine is constructed on the principles of fire pumps, but is nonetheless quite different from those; it [the Argands’ machine] is actioned by the vapors released by the valves, and only requires the workers to open and close a turncock. (ibid., fol. 218r)
As this passage shows, the necessity of human workers at the manufactory was very limited, and their tasks were generally simple and safe. The experts estimated that two people were enough to run the distillery, but if two more workers were assigned to the nightshift the production could rise from “5 almuds (muids) of wine in 8 or 9 hours” to “15 almuds per day” (ibid.).Footnote 24
The core of the report is dedicated to a series of experiments conducted on the still to test its efficiency. The members of the Society began the preparation of the experiments on the night before—“on December 18, at 2 AM” (ibid., fol. 219r)—which consisted in emptying the alembics, extinguishing fire in all the furnaces, namely in resetting the apparatus to measure its performance from scratch. The first experiment (out of nine) concerned the distillation of spirit of wine, namely ethanol. The alembic was charged with 90 veltes (c. 685.8 liters), and 130 pounds of coal were put into the furnace. The fire was started at 8 AM; at 9:15 a certain “phlegm or liquid low in alcohol” started coming out of the machines (ibid., fol. 220r). At 10:15, after collecting three pints of this phlegm, a bucket (bassiot) for distillate collection was put at the end of the cooling coil. The bucket could contain up to 9.5 veltes (c. 72.4 liters), and the first one was filled with spirit of wine at 1 PM. The alcohol content of the product was verified by means of two different Baumé areometers, both confirming that the spirit of wine is slightly stronger than the “preuve de Hollande,” viz. a distillate that contains 50% water (equivalent to 19 degrees Baumé). A thermometer was also used to verify the temperature of the product, which was between 9 and 10°Ré (11.25–12.5°C). The second bucket was filled at 3 PM, and afterwards—until 5:15 PM—the “repasse” was carried out, namely a double distillation to obtain a purer product. At 5:15, the last repasse with a “taste of something burnt [goût de feu]” was put together with the phlegm extracted at the very beginning of distillation, and a final operation was launched to extract the most from these waste materials. The result was 2 veltes (c. 15.2 liters). Overall, the distillation yielded 2 buckets of 9.5 veltes each, plus 2 veltes extracted from waste, namely a total amount of 21 veltes (c. 160 liters). The experts also provided a quantification of the performance of the Argands’ distillation in number of pots (c. 1.8 liters) per minute: “the duration of the operation has been of 9 hours, namely 2 hours to get it started, 5 hours of distillation, and 2 hours for the repasse. The operation produced about 2/5 of a pot [c. 400 ml] every minute” (ibid., fol. 221r). At the end of the distillation cycle, the fuel employed for the procedure was also accurately quantified: “We weighted the coal left from the [initial] 130 pounds. 83 pounds were left; only 47 pounds were consumed, namely about 2 and ¼ pounds per velte of brandy” (ibid., fol. 221r–v).
The descriptions of the following experiments are also rich in accurate temporal indications, with which the authors of the report often coupled measures of the temperature and density of the distillates. The fourth experiment, for instance, reads as follows:
On December 20 at 7 AM we put in a box 107 pounds of coal for the use of this alembic and we started the fire; at 8 AM a trickle started to flow, which became more intense ¼ hour later …. At 11h05 we removed the third bucket, which was measured at 30½ degrees at the Baumé areometer; at 12h40 we had the fourth bucket, at 29½ degrees; at 2h20 PM the fifth, at 28 degrees; at 4h05 PM the sixth, at 22 degrees. (ibid., fol. 224r)
While drawing their conclusions on the Argands’ distillation method, the authors of the report stressed that its main advantages were “the economy of the distillation costs,” which consisted mostly in reduced coal consumption, “the increased value of products” (ibid., fol. 226v), but also time economy: “the economy of time is almost as considerable as that of coal” (ibid., fol. 227v). Time thrift was here evaluated in a comparative way, namely by confronting the innovative distillation techniques adopted in the Argands’ manufactory with ordinary apparatus and methods:
[…] in the first experiment, we have distilled an almud of wine in nine hours, plus one hour ½ to charge and discharge the alembic; to have the same product with an ordinary apparatus, it would take three distillations of 8h each, namely 24h. In the second experiment, an almud and a half [of wine] has been distilled in 9h½, while in a normal workshop that would require over 36h. We gain thus 2/3 or even ¾ of time. (ibid., fol. 227v)
Interestingly, the examiners did not link time economy exclusively with financial profit, following Franklin’s “time is money” logic, but rather hinted at a multiplicity of possible advantages entailed by the acceleration of the production process: “We cannot calculate with precision the advantages which shall follow from this reduction of the duration of the operations, but it is clear that they are immense” (ibid., fol. 227v).
The insistence on the contraction of distillation time, and the association of the economy of time and fuel, are central themes also of Jean-Baptiste François Rozier’s description of the Argands’ distillery, which greatly contributed to its fame.Footnote 25 In the fourth tome of his Cours complet d’agriculture théorique, pratique, économique (1783), the famous agronomist presented the Argands’ manufactory as “the most perfect in the whole world … there is no other like it, so convenient and economic” (Rozier Reference Rozier1783, 17a). Like the members of the Montpellier Society, Rozier had visited the manufactory and made experiments to assess its performance. After praising the material structure of the distillery, he stressed the economy of production by comparing the products of the Argands’ manufactory with those of a nearby distillery. While the Argands could distill “92 veltes of wine in a single still” with “44 pounds of coal” in only “six hours,” their neighbor distilled “50 veltes of wine in a single still” using “60 pounds of coal for the distillation” in “five hours 42 minutes” (ibid., 19a). Rozier emphasized that the Argands’ method afforded a relevant economy of fuel, as well as of time:
The distillation of Messrs. Argand, after starting the fire, lasted seven hours; the neighbor’s one lasted seven hours 39 minutes; but if the neighbor was to do three distillations in a row to have the same quantity of product that Messrs. Argand got in 7 hours 39 minutes, it would take [to the neighbor] about 23 hours …. Over three distillations, there would be an economy [for the Argands] of 116 pounds of coal. The economy of time is no less important: to get brandy prevue de Hollande from 90 veltes of wine it took [for the neighbor] 36 hours and three distillation cycles, while Messrs. Argand needed only 7 hours and one distillation; therefore, they gained 29 hours of time. (ibid., 19a–b)
The comparison presented by Rozier is grounded on accurate temporal indications, displaying the importance of a meticulous temporal organization to set up an efficient production method. The economy of production was also evaluated from the management of time, which was an index of productivity: an accelerated work rhythm made it possible to increase the quantity of the final products, thus enhancing financial profit, but also wasting less materials, particularly fuel. It is to be noted that, while fuel was always quantified alongside time, no account of the activity of the Argands’ distillery provided a quantification of earnings (which the owners probably wanted to remain confidential). The enactment of time thrift in manufacturing was not only a sign of productivity, but also of ingenuity: the acceleration of production was a technical exploit, which needed hard work and a significant scientific background to achieve. Manufacturing activity became, so to say, a “race against the clock” as producers sought to establish new speed records to beat their competitors.
The acceleration of the production cycle, both in view of making more profit and as a sign of the entrepreneur’s ingenuity, was in certain cases exacerbated. The need to outpace competitors and break velocity records could sometimes lead to forgoing thrift in resources, and to lowering the quality standard of products, mostly in the name of financial gain, anticipating a typical pattern of capitalist industry. This is the case with late eighteenth-century Scottish distilleries, of which I shall briefly examine the practice of time thrift relying on two governmental reports of 1798–99 (Reports respecting the Distilleries in Scotland, by Committees of the Honourable the House of Commons, Appointed in 1798 and 1799 [Anon. 1799]).Footnote 26 Until the 1780s, in Scotland, duties on distillation were calculated on the basis of “actual account and survey” (Anon. 1799, 3) of the quantities of spirits made by the distiller. Tax fraud, however, was very high because of the producers’ ability to elude controls, and to “the connivance of the excise officer” (ibid., 4). To obviate such problems, in 1786 the method of licenses was adopted. The governmental experts were convinced they had a knowledge of distillation techniques precise and detailed enough to be able to calculate the average volume of spirits that a distiller could produce per year (given the size of the still used for the operation, whose maximum volume was defined by law). Annual licenses were thus sold at a price calculated based on this estimate. Unfortunately, the result of this reform was not as expected, so much so that the 1798–99 reports concluded with a plea to change the legislation again.Footnote 27 What happened is that:
The distiller began to work as it is called against time, and the whole ingenuity of the trade was employed to discover the means of increasing the power of their stills, so as to enable them to manufacture a greater quantity of spirits in the course of the year for which the license was purchased, than the legislature had calculated upon when the amount of that license … was fixed. (Anon. 1799, 42; original emphases)
Scottish distillers were able to carry out their work “with a degree of celerity beyond any former conception on the subject” (ibid., 10). As one of the reporters observed during an inspection of a distillery at Canonmills, near Edinburgh, “the persons who conduct it work off their stills in 15, 12, and 8 minutes,” but there are good reasons to believe that “they can keep up to the same rapidity of 8 minutes all the year through” (ibid., 10).Footnote 28 Another distiller (whom the report leaves anonymous) could at first “charge and discharge his wash still in less than three minutes,” and worked then to further speed up the operation, managing to reach “the rate of once in every 2¾ minutes” (Anon. 1799, 56).
The problems caused by the license system were considerable. First, even when the government decided to change the parameters and calculated the tax on distillation based on a greater yearly production, it would be difficult if not impossible to ascertain “the ultimate stage to which the power of the still may be carried” (ibid., 55) in terms of velocity. Second, it would cause too much inequality between distillers, as the most rapid ones would control the whole business. The general tendency would be to “drive the whole trade into the hands of the few who shall acquire the skill and dexterity necessary for the constant execution of their work according to its principle [of extreme rapidity]” (ibid.). Third, and most importantly, “the rapid distillation … is hostile to the quality and salubrity of the spirit” (ibid., 57). The care for the high quality of the final product was given up in favor of faster and greater profit, entailing a dismissal of the basic principles of thrift of materials, including fuel: “The compulsory practice of too rapid distillation … proved to have a natural tendency to occasion a waste not only of fuel, but of the valuable material which forms the principal subject matter of the manufacture” (ibid., 60).
The late eighteenth-century production system of Scottish distilleries showcases an extreme implementation of time thrift, which comes much closer to Thompson’s notion. In the 1799 report, the bodily discipline of the distilleries’ employees was in fact compared to military discipline: “Those employed in some of the principal distilleries, appear already, in the justness and rapidity of their maneuvers, to equal or surpass the boasted celerity of the most improved sorts of military exercise and movements” (ibid., 67). Even in this context of work “against time,” the connection between time economy and ingenuity remained tight, as the intellectual and manual qualities of the artisan were a key to entrepreneurial success, especially for small businesses.
3. Conclusion
Whilst the literature on early modern thrift has mostly focused on the strategies deployed by experimenters to make the most of the available material resources, in this paper I have suggested that economy was also intended by eighteenth-century practitioners as a property of artifacts. While designing machines and production systems, ingenious artisans and experimenters worked to enhance the temporal performance of their inventions. As a matter of fact, the success of a device or set of devices (as is the case of manufactories) was often measured by comparing the time economy it afforded with concurrent technologies.
From the perspective of academic experts, the temporal performance was also a key parameter for evaluating innovations. In the expertise on machines and manufactories, scientists applied rigorous quantification methods to assess the compliance of new technologies with the principles of economy, namely the minimization of material consumption and the maximization of outputs. Among the measured parameters, time was one of the most systematically and accurately quantified to determine the degree of economy of innovations. This is especially true of technologies dealing with the management of heat, which represented a crucial problem for household practitioners, artisans, and laboratory experimenters alike.
The association between time economy and the ecology of materials found its limit in the fin-de-siècle development of manufacturing activities. One can here observe an acceleration of the action of machines and of working rhythms, aimed at increasing the mass of products and thus of commercial outputs, with little regard for the waste of material and human resources employed in the manufacturing process. The traditional idea of economy as good management of the household or of the community was then thrown into crisis, and the way was paved for the emergence of the market economy.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) as part of the research project Mesure du temps, chimie et cuisine: formalisation des pratiques au XVIIe et au XVIIIe siècle (grant number 100011_184856), based at the University of Neuchâtel. I am grateful to Gianenrico Bernasconi for the many fruitful discussions on the issues discussed in this paper. I also thank the anonymous referees for their extensive feedback and constructive criticism.
Competing interests
The author declares none.
Marco Storni is a postdoctoral fellow at the Université libre de Bruxelles. After completing his PhD at the École Normale Supérieure of Paris and the University of Bologna, he has been a postdoctoral fellow at Ca’ Foscari University of Venice and at the University of Neuchâtel. He is the author of Maupertuis. Le philosophe, l’académicien, le polémiste (Paris: Champion, 2022; winner of the Prize of the Fondation Del Duca-Institut de France, 2023) and the co-editor, with Gianenrico Bernasconi, of Early Modern Fire: Science, Technology, and the Urban Space (Leiden and Boston, MA: Brill, 2025).
