Watch-cocks

Peter Rivière

The Pitt Rivers Museum has among its collection of English objects, six watch-cocks, numbered 1945.5.83-88. These form part of a larger collection of 56 such items, numbered 1945.5.37-92. The catalogue entry for these objects reads:
Collection of “watch-cocks”, the elaborately engraved plate (usually of brass, sometimes gilded) which supports the balance-staff pivot and protects the balance wheel in the “verge watch”. (16th to early 19th centuries). This collection was the subject of a paper by Professor Arthur Thomson “The Secret of the Verge Watch: a study in symbolism and design”, in “Anthropological Essays presented to Edward Burne[tt] Tylor” 1907. He suggests that the designs on the watch-cocks were originally intended as protection against the evil eye and were continued by later craftsmen in ignorance of their origin. Designs classified by Prof. Thomson as follows (over): Faces (15) No. 37-51; Vases (8) 52-59; 17 Floral Scrolls (60-76); 5 Bowls and Boxes (77-81); 1 Bird (82); 6 English Lever (83-88); 1 French (89); 3 Peculiar ones (90-92). Total 56. [1]

To expand slightly on the above description, the verge watch is so known from the form of its escapement. The verge (or crown wheel) escapement is the earliest known type of escapement, that is the mechanism in a mechanical clock that controls its rate by advancing the gear train at regular intervals or 'ticks'. Its origin is apparently unknown. Verge escapements were used from the 14th until the 19th century in clocks and pocket watches. The Pitt Rivers has two verge watches in its collections; one English dated 1780 (1940.7.54) and one French dated 1700-1759 (1940.7.55).

The function of the watch-cock is to protect the mechanism. They were made by specialists, called ‘cock makers’. What is not made clear in the catalogue entry is that the watch-cock is not normally visible, being part of the internal mechanism of the watch. However, this is a key aspect of Thomson’s argument in the article referred to, as we will see below.

As stated in the catalogue entry the whole collection had been owned by Arthur Thomson and it was donated to the Pitt Rivers Museum by his daughters, Mrs Richardson and Mrs Mackenzie following the death of Arthur Thomson’s widow, Mary. This examination will concentrate on the six English lever cocks, numbered 1945.5.83-88, but first it will be useful to say something about Arthur Thomson and his whole collection of watch-cocks before concentrating on the English examples.

Arthur Thomson [2] was born in Edinburgh on 21 March 1858. He studied medicine at Edinburgh University and subsequently served as a demonstrator of anatomy there. In 1885 Thomson came to Oxford, appointed to the newly created post of Lecturer in Human Anatomy in the medical school which had recently been created. When Sir Henry Acland, the driving force behind the medical school, became ill, Thomson took over from him and it was through his efforts that the school continued to flourish, although at the cost to Thomson of a great deal of administrative work that prevented his ever fulfilling his promise as an anatomist. From 1893 Thomson bore the title of Extraordinary Professor of Human Anatomy and in 1919 he became the first incumbent of Dr Lee’s Chair in Human Anatomy and a Student (i.e., Fellow) of Christ Church. He resigned from the Chair in 1833 and died on 7 February 1935 at his home, 163 Woodstock Road, Oxford.

Thomson is an important figure in the history of Oxford anthropology. [3] From 1885 anthropology had been available as a Supplementary Subject in the Natural Science Final Honour School. Tylor early on recruited Thomson to provide the lectures in physical anthropology. Then, in 1905, when the Committee for Anthropology came into existence, followed a couple of years later by the Diploma in Anthropology, Thomson became, with Henry Balfour and Ranulph Marett, part of a triumvirate that was to be ‘Oxford anthropology’ for the next three decades.

Thomson main interest outside academia was art. He was an accomplished artist and painting in watercolour was his chief recreation. Some of his works were exhibited at the Royal Academy, to which organization he regularly lectured and to which he was appointed Professor of Anatomy in 1900; he remained in this post until the year before his death. His two lives came together in a book published in 1896, entitled A Handbook of Anatomy for Art Students. [4] In Oxford as well he involved himself in art; he was a Ruskin Trustee and a member of the Oxford Art Society of which he was the President in 1922.

We can now turn to Thomson as a collector. It is not clear whether he collected objects other than the watch-cocks that are the topic of this article, but his collection of these items must have started right at the beginning of the 20th century, if not earlier. When, in 1907, he contributed to the volume of essays presented to Tylor the article already mentioned, he owned over 160 specimens of watch-cocks. It should be noted that there is a difference between the way in which the 56 examples donated to the Pitt Rivers are classified and the classification contained in the article. To repeat the entry in the Donations book, quoted above, the classification there is: Faces (15) No. 37-51; Vases (8) 52-59; 17 Floral Scrolls (60-76); 5 Bowls and Boxes (77-81); 1 Bird (82); 6 English Lever (83-88); 1 French (89); 3 Peculiar ones (90-92).

In the article, there are six classes, with illustrations of examples of each class, and a residue class which is unillustrated. The criterion employed in distinguishing between classes is the design on the watch-cock. Class 1 specimens, which represented about 50 per cent of his total collection, have grotesque heads engraved on them. The 1907 Class 2 are described as having ‘the form of a vase incorporated with the design’ and composed about 13 per cent of the collection. The 1907 Class 3 display the figures of birds and formed about 9 per cent of Thomson’s collection. The 1907 Class 4 objects exhibit baskets laden with fruit and flowers, Class 5 star-like patterns, and Class 6 is a mixture of designs including dolphins, lyres, a sacred heart, and a crescent and disk. The items in the residue class ‘do not present any features which call for special attention, the pattern being simply that of a foliated designed without any additional device’. This class composed about 12 percent of the total. We are not given the percentages for Classes 4, 5 and 6, but since the other four classes (1, 2, 3, & residue) amounted to some 84 per cent, this means that those three classes represented about 16 per cent. It should, however, be commented, which Thomson does not, that there is a certain degree of overlap between these classes; a fact revealed by examination of the illustrations provided. Thus, in Figure 3 (Plate XV), the example on the lower row, fourth from left, contains both a bird and a mask; in Figure 5, the item fourth from left exhibits both a star-shape and a mask, and in Figure 6 the first on the left has a bird as well as a dolphin.

When we turn to the Thomson collection held by the Pitt Rivers, the first thing to note is that not one of them is amongst those illustrated in 1907. Furthermore the classification provided with the collection, which we have outlined above, does not agree with that used in 1907. The 15 specimens classed as ‘Faces’ coincide with the 1907 Class 1, as do the eight ‘Vases’ with Class 2, except for 1945.5.55, on which it is difficult identify such an object. The 17 ‘Floral Scrolls’ cannot be identified with any of the named classes although they fit well with the description of the residue class. Of the five ‘Bowls and Boxes’ three (1945.5.77, 80, 81) appear to belong to the 1907 Class 4, but two (1945.5.78, 79) have no bowl or box design. The one ‘Bird’ in the Pitt Rivers collection (1945.5.82) fits with the 1907 Class 3, except for the fact that as well as two birds it also has a face or mask (see Illustration I). The other three classes of the Pitt Rivers Collection have no corresponding class from 1907. Five of the six English Lever type would have fallen within the 1907 residue class as they are of ‘a foliated design without any additional device’. The exception is 1945.5.87 which appears to have a mask on it. Finally there are three (1945.5.90-2) labelled Peculiar. Two of these (90 & 91) have a face on them and the other could belong to Class 5, having a star-like pattern. It is not clear why they have been described as ‘peculiar’, but the accompanying notes suggest they are of French origin. [5]

If we turn now to the English examples the feature that immediately distinguishes them from the others is shape. With the exception of 1945.5.83 which has an irregular outline (see Illustration II) they are keyhole-shaped (see Illustration III). The others, from continental Europe, once again with one exception - the French specimen (1945.5.89) - are round at the top (see Illustration I). This and the presence of the word ‘lever’ are important. Unlike all the examples discussed in the 1907 examples, which, Thomson states explicitly in the first paragraph of his article, are taken from ‘verge’ watches, the English examples, as their name suggests, are a component of ‘lever escapement’ watches. This device, invented by Thomas Mudge [6] in the 1750s, was far superior to the verge and during the 19th century superseded it. Indeed the single example of an English lever watch in the Pitt Rivers (1961.1.098) is dated 19th century. In fact the lever escapement is still found today in most mechanical watches. Without going into details, it might be noted that there was a difference in the layout of the lever as fitted in English as opposed to Swiss watches, the latter having now become the usual type. The watch-cock, however, continues to have the same function of protecting the mechanism. This site illustrates the position of the watch-cock, labelled ‘balance cock’, in a lever watch and as will be seen it is very similar in shape to the English example shown in Illustration III.

Although the collection that reached the Pitt Rivers in 1945 does not overlap at all with the 60 illustrated examples out of Thomson’s collection of about 160 in 1907, we do not know what happened after the latter date. In fact there are many unanswered questions. Did he continue to add to his collection? Were the English objects part of his collection in 1907? Were there more English examples in the 1907 collection than reached the Pitt Rivers? We also do not know what happened to that part of his collection not donated to the Pitt Rivers.

Finally, let us turn to the argument contained in Arthur Thomson’s 1907 article. The question he asks is ‘why has so much care been lavished on the design of a component which is not normally visible?’ His answer to this question is that they are designed to ward off the influence of the evil eye, either on the watch itself or on its owner. He reaches this conclusion by demonstrating that each of the designs he has recognised ‘are those which are almost universally employed as charms against the evil eye’. However, a further question then arises, which is why should watches of English make also carry such designs? He traces this back to an Italian influence and claims that watchmakers were just slavishly following the fashion of the time ‘without any clear appreciation of the significance of the devices employed’. In other words, they were an example of a ‘survival’, that theoretical construction of Tylor’s that was almost an orthodoxy at the time. The notion of ‘survivals’ explained the presence in modern society of objects, ideas and practices that had lost their meaning and function which they had had in an earlier stage of society. By establishing these it was possible to reconstruct these earlier stages. In this case the designs on the cocks made by rational English watchmakers had lost their meaning which was a feature of superstitious and backward Italians. The one piece of evidence that I have found to support Thomson’s argument that the original purpose of the designs was to ward off misfortune is the illustration of an early 18th century French watch-cock showing a child brandishing a cross and facing a serpent, with a caption reading ‘Malgré l’Envie’. [8] However, with the one possible exception already noted, none of the English examples in the Pitt Rivers collection (admittedly a small sample) bears one of the designs which Thomson associates with protection from the evil eye.

I have no alternative explanation for why so much care and effort were expended in decorating a part of a watch that was normally out of sight. If, however, one ignores that aspect of the theory of survivals that claims that through them one can reconstruct earlier stages of civilization, it is not entirely out of the question that at least some of the designs were created as a defence against the evil eye. Furthermore, watches in the 17th and 18th centuries were as much worn as ornaments as for telling the time, for which they were not particularly reliable or accurate. [9] However, once a tradition of decoration had grown up, it is quite understandable that it would continue simply through its own momentum. In what was basically a luxury trade a craftsman could not risk simplifying his product. It was with the increasing importance of time in the 19th century, whether for working hours or train schedules, that the watch became a common and utilitarian object in which expensive decoration had no place.

Well before Thomson had put together his collection of watch-cocks, these objects had become what are known today as ‘collectibles’. There is a short notice in Notes & Queries of 1883 [10] reporting that the Rev. J. Beck had exhibited at the Archaeological Institute a quantity of watch-cocks, ‘objects ... [that] have only lately attracted the attention of connoisseurs’. The same notice refers to a Mr Billings who had a ‘large number of “watch-cocks”, of which he was very proud’.

Together with the Thomson collection, the Pitt Rivers has one other watch-cock (1961.2.034). This has been made into a brooch. This was quite a common fate for watch-cocks when the watches to which they were attached were broken up. In the mid-1880s, jewellery, brooches, necklaces, earrings, etc., made from watch-cocks became fashionable. In fact, they have also been made into other objects, and at the time of writing (March 2008) a whole range of items made out of or incorporating watch-cocks can be found for sale on-line, although those of a sensitive disposition need to be careful about what they type into a search engine.

Notes and references

[1] Pp.355-9, in H. Balfour et al., Anthropological essays presented to Edward Burnett Tylor. Oxford, The Clarendon Press 1907
[2] For information on Thomson’s life, see Oxford Dictionary of National Biography and his obituary in The Times, 8 February 1935.
[3] For a fuller account of the information contained in this paragraph, see Peter Rivière (ed.), A History of Oxford Anthropology, Berghahn 2007, in particular Chapters 1 and 2. There is a photograph of him on p. 49.
[4] Published by The Clarendon Press, Oxford, it went through a number of editions, the most recent being 1930.
[5] There are some notes about the designers on the envelope in which they are kept and some further notes among the filed documentation.
[6] See Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Mudge was also much involved in the 18th century development of a reliable chronometer for the accurate reckoning of longitude.
[7] Taken from www.horologia.co.uk/english_lever_repair1.html.
[8] See p.167, illus. 131, Catherine Cardinal, The Watch from its Origins to the XIXth Century. Thornbury, Bristol, Artlines 1989.
[9] Many watches are worn today for the same reason, but they are now far more accurate and reliable than everyday use requires.
[10] Series 6, Volume 8 of 29 December 1883, pp.512-3.