Early Telescopes and Ancient Scientific Instruments in the Paintings of Jan Brueghel the Elder

Ancient instruments of high interest for research on the origin and diffusion of early scientific devices in the late XVI - early XVII centuries are reproduced in three paintings by Jan Brueghel the Elder. We investigated the nature and the origin of these instruments, in particular the spyglass depicted in a painting dated 1609-1612 that represents the most ancient reproduction of an early spyglass, and the two sophisticated spyglasses with draw tubes that are reproduced in two paintings, dated 1617-1618. We suggest that these two instruments may represent early examples of keplerian telescopes. Concerning the other scientific instruments, namely an astrolabe, an armillary sphere, a nocturnal, a proportional compass, surveying instruments, a Mordente’s compass, a theodolite, etc., we point out that most of them may be associated with Michiel Coignet, cosmographer and instrument maker at the Court of the Archduke Albert VII of Hapsburg in Brussels.

💡 Research Summary

The paper investigates three paintings by Jan Brueghel the Elder that contain depictions of scientific instruments from the late sixteenth to early seventeenth centuries. The authors focus first on a single‑tube spyglass shown in a painting dated between 1609 and 1612. By comparing the visual characteristics of the instrument with the earliest Dutch and German spyglasses produced by Hans Lipperhey, Zacharias Janssen and others, they argue that Brueghel’s image is the oldest known pictorial representation of an early Dutch spyglass. The dating of the painting coincides with the invention of the device (1608‑1609), suggesting that Brueghel either observed a real instrument in the Habsburg court or had access to a model supplied by court astronomers.

The second and third paintings, dated 1617‑1618, each contain two more elaborate telescopes equipped with multiple draw‑tubes. These telescopes differ from the simple spyglass in that they allow a much longer effective focal length and appear to produce an upright, magnified image rather than an inverted one. The authors link these features to Johannes Kepler’s 1611 theoretical description of a two‑lens “Keplerian” telescope, which predicts a positive eyepiece and a longer tube. The presence of draw‑tubes, the orientation of the eyepiece, and the overall geometry of the depicted instruments are consistent with early experimental attempts to realize Kepler’s design. Consequently, the two telescopes may represent some of the earliest surviving examples of a Keplerian telescope, predating most surviving physical specimens.

In addition to the telescopic devices, the paintings display a range of other scientific tools: an armillary sphere, an astrolabe, a nocturnal, a proportional compass, a Mordente’s compass, surveying instruments, and a theodolite. The authors note that many of these items correspond closely to instruments known to have been made by Michiel Coignet, a cosmographer and instrument maker employed by Archduke Albert VII of Habsburg in Brussels. Coignet’s workshop produced high‑precision astronomical and surveying equipment for the court, and surviving examples match the designs shown in Brueghel’s works in terms of scale, engraving style, and functional details.

The study concludes that Brueghel’s paintings are not merely decorative but serve as valuable documentary evidence of the diffusion of early modern scientific technology. The depiction of a single‑tube spyglass provides the earliest visual record of that invention, while the more complex telescopes may be the first visual attestations of Keplerian optics. Moreover, the association of the ancillary instruments with Coignet underscores the role of court craftsmen in disseminating scientific knowledge and technology.

Finally, the authors propose future research avenues: reconstructing the optical performance of the painted telescopes through experimental replication, conducting a comparative analysis with other contemporary court paintings, and mapping the transmission pathways of scientific instruments across European courts. Such interdisciplinary work would deepen our understanding of how art, science, and patronage intersected during a pivotal period in the history of technology.