When the World Learned to Think in Time: The Invention of the Modern Clock and the Making of Modern Life, c. 1300–1900

Introduction

A day is unlikely to go by without someone looking at the clock. Whether it be starting work at a designated time, catching the train or having an appointment . Time dictates many aspects of our lives, and our lives are dictated by time. Our lives are measured out in seconds, minutes and hours and with the advent of digital technology.The time is always visible. However, the notion that our lives should be measured and controlled by discrete, measurable units of time is a relatively modern innovation. In the pre-modern world, time was measured out in different ways according to the needs and desires of the individual. Mechanical clocks did not bring time-keeping to societies where it had previously been absent. It rather changed and enhanced ways of measuring time which had previously been available.

The development of mechanical clocks in late medieval Europe was an important innovation which led to clocks becoming increasingly common from the fourteenth century onwards. These were to be found in both monasteries and in the wider world. The public clocks and bells enabled ordinary people to mark the passing of time. Time became something that could be seen as well as measured. Also clock became a means by which the temporal could be regulated. However, it is important to understand that the significance of the clock was not the technology itself but rather the social changes which occurred as a result of it. As Gerhard Dohrn-van Rossum notes, the development of clocks was strongly linked to the emergence of new understandings of time in European society (Dohrn-van Rossum 1996). Paul Glennie and Nigel Thrift argue against seeing the evolution of time as a purely technological progression, highlighting the multiple ways in which individuals engaged with clocks and other temporal measurements (Glennie and Thrift 2009).

The relationship between clock time and modernity has proved a fascinating historical debate. For earlier historians, the increasing use of clock time was seen as an oppressive force which dictated the way in which people lived their lives. E. P. Thompson famously stated that the rise of industrial capitalism was strongly linked to the development of “time-discipline,” as people’s working hours became more strictly regulated by the clock than before (Thompson 1967). However, later historians have proven that many elements of time discipline and regular working patterns pre-dated the industrial factory system. Mark Hailwood’s work on rural England provides an illustration of the extent to which some people were already aware of clock time and regular working patterns in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (Hailwood 2020). The emergence of modern time discipline was not an immediate or inevitable process driven solely by industrialisation.

The historical significance of the mechanical clock was that it represented the increasing extent to which society as a whole engaged with measured time. From the fourteenth to the nineteenth centuries, time which had previously been seen as a largely abstract concept became increasingly integrated into aspects of everyday life. Time became a factor which influenced commercial activity, the regulation of workplaces and personal interactions, transport and the wider organisation of society. The introduction of public clocks enabled people to co-ordinate their activities, while the wearing of watches increasingly meant that time was an intimate part of individuals’ lives. Industrial workplaces were highly regulated and disciplined, and the development of the railways eventually led to the establishment of standardised time across different areas. By the nineteenth century, being punctual was not just a practical necessity but a social and moral requirement.

2. Before the Clock: A World of Multiple Times

The genesis of the mechanical clock is conceptually interesting only because of its relationship to alternative methods of organizing and experiencing time. Medieval Europeans did not live in a world without time.Instead,they lived with multiple times. The sun, the seasons, the agricultural year, saints' days, and patterns of work and rest all marked a rhythm of events. Days were divided not necessarily into equal units of time but into segments defined by specific occurrences. Evenings began and ended at specific moments like prayers, bells, markets, and the completion of particular tasks (Dohrn-van Rossum 1996, 19–47; Glennie and Thrift 2009, 22–28).

Religious institutions were among the most important sources of medieval temporal structure. Monks followed defined sequences of rituals, and bells marked particular events for the wider community. The hours defined the day, but these hours did not follow the modern pattern of sixty equal minutes. Medieval divisions of time were often variable, and daylight and dark were apportioned into different numbers of hours depending on the time of year. Dohrn-van Rossum therefore warns against reading too much of an early modern clock in the medieval monastic day. The ordering principles of event and organization were often more important than the precise segmentation of equal measures of time (Dohrn-van Rossum 1996, 48–80). Bells could therefore organize collective rhythms without requiring anyone to think in terms of modern, equal measures of time.

Time also took on different meanings in different commercial and civic contexts in medieval Europe. Jacques Le Goff's distinction between “Church time” and “merchant time” illustrated the ways in which time for trade could involve duration and calculation, credit and debt and profit. At the same time, Church teachings often linked time to God, who lived outside of chronological experience. The two perspectives were different but were not necessarily incompatible (Le Goff 1960; Le Goff 1980, 29–42). Le Goff's argument became one of the most influential accounts of medieval temporal culture, but later scholarship has complicated this view by illustrating the ways in which both religious and commercial clocks were part of a wider system.

The complexity of medieval temporal culture should not be underestimated. Agriculture followed seasonal patterns, communities gathered and dispersed at particular moments in the year, monasteries marked events with specific rituals. Bells and other public signals organized urban life. Glennie and Thrift's research on England and Wales demonstrates how clock time and “natural time” were often combined in medieval daily life . And this coexistence lasted well into the early modern period (Glennie and Thrift 2009, 22–64). Their work therefore indicates that the appearance of mechanical clocks did not automatically lead to a change in the way that ordinary people experienced time.

The sophistication of pre-modern timekeeping was also apparent in non-vernacular domains. Astronomers, mathematicians, and other learned professionals were well aware of the complexities of tracking the heavens and the planet. The history of timekeeping therefore involves a series of increasingly sophisticated technologies. Sundials, water clocks, mechanical devices, astrolabes, calendars, bells, and clocks were all part of the development. Different technologies were important at different stages, but none dominated overall temporal organization (Dohrn-van Rossum 1996, 81–119).

What changed with the mechanical clock was the capacity to measure and share specific regularities of time with greater consistency. The clock does not mark out a fundamental change in the human experience of time but a shift in the ways that regularities of time could be measured and shared with wider audiences. It is therefore essential to distinguish between different temporal regimes. The clock is not necessarily substituting a “natural” time for a “mechanical” one . But it is joining different sequences and gradually transforming them by introducing regular, measurable hours as publicly accessible signals (Glennie and Thrift 2009, 22–64).

3. When Time Became Visible: The Mechanical Clock and the Medieval City

The mechanical clock gained its historical place not only for its ability to measure time but for its visibility within the spaces in which people lived and worked. Mechanical clock technology was developed within a European environment already familiar with sundials, water clocks, astronomical instruments, and systems of timekeeping which followed religious time . What made the mechanical clock different from these was its ability to produce a regular sequence of movements via a mechanical escapement . It was also able to translate this into audible or visible signals. Its significance therefore was not only its technical precision but the possibility of maintaining a continuous, autonomous rhythm of measured time (Dohrn-van Rossum 1996, 119–164; Landes 2000, 50–72).

Some of the earliest sophisticated examples show the intellectual aspirations of medieval horological technology. Richard of Wallingford, the fourteenth century abbot of St Albans, designed an elaborate astronomical clock and described its making in his Tractatus Horologii Astronomici. His ambition to combine mechanical calculation with astronomical observation shows that medieval clockmaking was closely connected to mathematical and scientific knowledge rather than being merely a pragmatic response to the needs of merchants or workers (North 2005, 159–178). Similarly, Giovanni de' Dondi's Astrarium, constructed in the fourteenth century, was an extraordinary attempt to combine mechanical movement with the representation of celestial phenomena. Such instruments reveal that the early history of mechanical clocks was intertwined with the intellectual culture of astronomy and the desire to model the ordered movements of the heavens through mechanical means (Dohrn-van Rossum 1996, 145–164).

Large public clocks were installed around the cities of Europe during the fourteenth century, often attached to prominent civic or ecclesiastical buildings. The clock tower transformed measured time into a public spectacle. A community did no longer have to rely solely on the observation of individual sun or the varying signals of religious institutions .The mechanical device itself could offer a regular and increasingly standardised temporal signal (Landes 2000, 63–79).

The surviving clock mechanisms associated with Salisbury and Wells offer important material evidence. The clock in Salisbury Cathedral dates from the late fourteenth century, and the clock of Wells dated from approximately the same century. They demonstrate the sophistication of early mechanical horology. Their mechanisms were designed primarily to strike the hours rather than to display time in the form of the familiar modern clock face. This is an important point, for the earliest public mechanical clocks should not simply be seen as the medieval equivalent of contemporary clocks. Their social function often relied on sound as much as the visual spectacle. The striking of a bell could announce a temporal signal within an urban environment (Dohrn-van Rossum 1996, 164–189).

The sound of the clock expanded the reach of measured time . A clock located in a tower did not require everyone to have a timepiece. Instead of that its bell could be heard by people who engaged in different occupations and lived at different distances from the heart of the community. Time became something which could be collectively encountered. This marked the transformation from private or specialised forms of temporal knowledge towards a more broadly shared temporal reference (Glennie and Thrift 2009, 65–94).

The placing of clocks in prominent urban locations also gave time a civic dimension. Municipal authorities, churches, guilds, and other institutions could have an interest in controlling or maintaining public timekeeping. The clock was associated with the organisation of the urban activity and the authority of institutions able to construct, finance, maintain and regulate it. Its presence within the urban landscape therefore signalled an increase of institutionalisation of measured time (Dohrn-van Rossum 1996, 190–216).

This however should not be conceived of as an immediate replacement of older temporal practices. The bells continued to communicate religious events and agriculture related timings. people remained reliant on daylight and local custom. Mechanical clocks were gradually added to an existing temporal landscape. As Glennie and Thrift demonstrate, clock time and other forms of time keeping could co-exist for centuries with their importance varying according to occupation, location, wealth and social circumstance (Glennie and Thrift 2009, 95–125).The medieval clock therefore is a crucial step in the history of modernity as it transformed the visibility and authority of measured time. It transformed time from something primarily experienced with recurring natural and social events into something which could increasingly be represented by a machine.

4. From Bells to Business: Time Enters Economic Life

The rise of mechanical clocks in European towns did not immediately create a society of punctuality. As commerce grew in the late medieval and early modern periods, time increasingly took on an economic dimension: it could be apportioned, calculated, anticipated, and, ultimately, valued.

Merchants had long been in possession of sophisticated means of calculating time, without needing mechanical clocks. The long-distance nature of trade meant that information concerning seasons, travel times, market days, tides, and religious holidays were all vital to determining a merchant's activity. The letters and commercial records of Italian trading centres demonstrate a world in which merchants kept meticulous records of dates, journeys, payments, and expected deliveries. The surviving correspondence of merchants like Francesco Datini demonstrates the degree to which commerce depended on the management of temporal intervals. Datini's huge archive of letters, account books, and business records from late fourteenth-century Prato demonstrate the degree to which merchants coordinated transactions across great distances. It constantly referred to dates, departures, arrivals, payments and deadlines (Origo 1957, 34-57).

The rise of commercial capitalism resulted in the clock becoming part of an economic culture in which time was already increasingly valuable. The Italian merchant culture developed sophisticated systems of calculation about interest, exchange rates, quantities, and dates, which created an intellectual environment in which duration could be considered as a measurable economic variable (Goetzmann 2005, 19-41). The clock provided another tool by which this wider culture of calculation could be expressed in terms of the organisation of daily activity.

Urban institutions were also implicated in this process. Markets were increasingly organised around particular times and places. The workshops and commercial establishments developed regular opening, closing, and production schedules. The regulation of urban activity was far from uniform, and different occupations operated at different rhythms. The availability of public temporal signals allowed activities which had previously been coordinated through custom or knowledge to be increasingly synchronised. The public clock was part of the infrastructure of commercial urban life.

The relationship between time and value became most apparent in the shifting attitudes towards waiting and delay. A delayed shipment could affect an entire chain of transactions for a merchant. The lengthening of time could dictate financial outcomes for a creditor, and the journey time of a travelling trader could determine his costs and opportunities. Time increasingly took on an economic vocabulary. It could be "saved", "lost", "spent" or "wasted", terms which would become increasingly familiar in the modern economic culture.

This transformation cannot be seen as evidence that Europeans suddenly discovered the economic value of time. Commercial societies had always been reliant on calculation about time, but what changed was the degree to which institutions and individuals were able to coordinate activity on the basis of more regular and visible measures. The history of early modern commerce therefore demonstrates the distinction between valuing time and measuring time. The former was always present, but the latter was gradually refined and became more socially widespread.

The seventeenth century saw further changes through the growth of portable watches and clocks. The process of measuring time gradually left behind large, public mechanisms, and became increasingly associated with private possession. Portable watches remained expensive and socially restricted for most of the century . Their existence represented a conceptual innovation in which measured time could accompany an individual, rather than be fixed to a church tower or civic building (Landes 1983, 1-14). The temporal order of the city could increasingly be re-produced, in miniature form.

The significance of this development becomes clearer when it is placed alongside the changes in forms of work. A workshop, merchant house, office, or commercial establishment, could increasingly structure activity around recurring temporal expectations. Time became the channel through which economic activity occurred and an element which could also be organised as part of that activity.

5. The clock at work: time discipline and the industrial world

The introduction of the clock in the workplace has fundamentally altered the relationship between people and time. Prior to industrialization, time was to a large extent dependent on the work, the weather, the season, and domestic and communal routines. The factory allowed employers to organize thousands of workers on a regular schedule. The clock became a tool for measuring, recording, and regulating working hours.

EP Thompson’s classic study of industrial capitalism is preoccupied with the shift from “task to time” for the reason that the factory began to value regular attendance more than the ability to produce a certain amount of goods during working hours. In other words, the worker was expected to work regularly rather than to simply finish a particular task (Thompson 1967, 56-97). The introduction of the clock in the workplace made the worker adhere to a strict schedule.It appears that the shift to “time” was not always to the advantage of the worker.

The earliest factory regulations at John Crowley’s ironworks around 1700 stipulated specific times for commencement of work, meals and resumption of work. A special person had to be appointed to ensure the clock was working correctly and to ring the bell at the beginning and the end of the shift. In fact, the regulation of working time and the attendant discipline long preceded the Industrial Revolution proper and contributed to the rise of what we now know as time discipline (Thompson 1967,80-81).Accordingly, the clock became an object of contention between workers and employers. The testimony of workers from the 19th century illustrate that the clock could be manipulated for the benefit of the master:

A further source of complaint was the practice by which clocks were mysteriously “slowed down” or “speeded up” at the master’s pleasure. Consequently, the clock was in some cases actually a subject of dispute, for if the working day was artificially prolonged, workers could hardly be blamed for trying to restore their rights (Thompson 1967, 88-90).The state intervened in the regulation of working time in order to define a legal framework within which both masters and workers had to operate.

The factory legislation in Britain increasingly intervened in the regulation of working time, stipulating the number of hours for which a worker could be employed . It required the time of the working day to be publicly displayed. For example, the Factory Act of 1847 limited the working hours of women and young persons . The act intensified the regulation of working time and the inspection of factories. By the 1850s, the measurement and registration of working time had become a public issue as factory clocks were now subject to state control (Thompson 1967, 90-92).

According to the study by Douglas Reid, “Saint Monday” continued to be a popular unofficial holiday among workers, despite the increased discipline enforced by the factory owners (Reid 1976, 76-101). In other words, despite the clock, many workers still continued to exercise their own authority over time. The same conclusion may be drawn from the study by Anne Murphy concerning the Bank of England.Prior to the emergence of the modern factory, Bank of England was already implementing strict rules and monitoring its employees’ clock-watching behavior. As Murphy points out, the regulation of working hours does not necessarily correspond to actual working hours, for they could still be manipulated in practice (Murphy 2017, 99-132).Glennie and Thrift conclude that the historical process leading to the clock dominating over other ways of measuring time should not be thought of as the imposition of clock time on a timeless society. It rather should be seen as the interaction between various temporal orders, one of which was the clock (Glennie and Thrift 1996, 275-303).

The cultural history of clock time is equally interesting. The concept of punctuality ceased to be merely a virtue of the individual but rather became a value fraught with moral connotations. Being on time meant being a respectable and honest person, whereas being late meant being dishonest and unreliable. The clock became an integral part of the individual’s moral code. Kevin Birth’s recent study of industrial time keeps the nuance inherent in Thompson’s account.He agrees that the rise of capitalist factory production accounts for the shift to clock time, he emphasizes that in different contexts, time was measured differently and that other ways of regulating social life existed alongside the clock (Birth 2022, 373-394). It is not the physical presence of the clock that changed fundamentally in the 19th century, but rather the social structure, within which the clock gained unprecedented power and influenced various aspects of social life.

6. Watches, Railways and the Synchronisation of Modern Life

By the nineteenth century time has become increasingly portable. Time became something that could be worn, carried, and consulted in private in the form of the pocket watch . This development was especially significant in a period in which modernity produced a highly mobile society in which commercialization, urbanization, and industrialization all required that individuals fit their activities to those of an ever-growing number of others. As Alexis McCrossen’s study of nineteenth-century America demonstrates, the pocket watch made it possible for individuals to personify public time . They could carry around a miniature version of the clock tower (Mcrossen 2013, 63-88).

As nineteenth-century America entered the watchmaking age, personal possession of a timepiece became increasingly associated with punctuality. This development connected personal timekeeping to the broader shift in which time became disciplined. The association between owning a watch and the responsibility to be punctual was especially strong for those who relied on being punctual to earn a living. The same development explains the popularity of pocket watches. Their very presence made individuals aware of their punctuality and their membership in an increasingly punctual society. The rise of the watchmaking industry in the nineteenth century confirms this interpretation (Donze 2026).

The development of the railway system gave a new dimension to the art of personal timekeeping. Prior to the emergence of railways, the difference between one town’s time and another’s was of little consequence. The local clock tower was a useful reference for individuals who needed to arrive somewhere at a particular hour. A journey between two neighboring villages could take hours or days, and the half-hour difference between two adjacent towns was of only marginal concern to travelers. However, as railroads came to link entire nations together, the relationship between distance and time became more relevant than ever. Trains could now transport passengers and cargo between two points in a matter of hours making the local differences in time increasingly difficult to navigate.

The first timetables offer an especially useful perspective on the temporal organization of early railways. George Bradshaw’s railway guides were among the first to provide departing and arrival times for the rail routes of his day. Bradshaw’s Railway Companion appeared in 1840, several years before the establishment of standard railway time. It provides a useful insight into how local timekeeping traditions shaped the early timetable. The guide was later expanded and updated, becoming a comprehensive guide to the railway system of Britain (London Museum 1840). Bradshaw’s timekeeping practices were not unique to him as most railway timetables in Britain followed a similar pattern. The guide’s tables for the Great Western Railway (GWR) and the London and North Western Railway (LNWR) demonstrate how time measurement slowly came to transform from a parochial practice into a tool of synchronization.

The GWR’s 1841 timetable explicitly notes the differences between London Time and the local times of other stations along the route, with the difference increasing in direct proportion to the distance away from London (Network Rail 2020).This shift demonstrated how punctuality was becoming an increasingly important aspect of modern life. Missing a train was not merely a matter of arriving at a destination slightly later than expected. A train was bound to a strict schedule, and its departure time rarely accommodated individual delays. The train’s timetable therefore represented a new kind of temporal order.

Mike Esbester has demonstrated that the railway timetable was a unique innovation that transformed both contemporary attitudes toward time and the methods of its measurement. As the railway system became ever more complex, its timetables became more detailed and difficult to navigate. The emerging conventions of railway timekeeping thus anticipated modern innovations in information design, serving as an early example of informational design intended to facilitate the reader’s understanding of a complicated system (Esbester 2009). However, the development of standard time also raised new questions about how time should be measured in the first place.

The observatories provided an essential source of temporal stability at a crucial moment in the development of standardized timekeeping. As the telegraph provided an efficient means of long-distance communication, observatories found new practical applications for their research. The Royal Observatory at Greenwich especially benefited from the telegraph’s capacity to relay information over long distances. Therefore the time signals sent by the observatory to other institutions became crucial to the development of standard time. The synchronization of the timetable to the astronomical clock was subsequently adopted by railway companies across Britain. Such an approach demonstrates the extent to which time measurement and keeping were integral to the larger project of modernization. The collaboration between the Royal Observatory, telegraph companies, and railway firms makes it clear that timekeeping did not take place in isolation: rather, the synchronization of Britain’s clocks was part of a wider process that made communication and transportation easier (Higgitt 2019).

Standard time had already begun to encroach upon local measurements of time by the 1850s. However the distinction between railway time and legal time remained a crucial consideration for many. Although the majority of Britain’s railway companies had adopted London Time, local mean time remained in use for many other purposes. As a result, the difference between railway time and legal time persisted for several decades. The Statutes (Definition of Time) Act of 1880 saw Parliament legalized the standard time . It stipulated that the acts of Parliament, legal documents, and other official documents would be measured according to Greenwich Mean Time (Great Britain 1880).

The shift from personal to standard time demonstrates the significance of the clock in modern history. The pocket watch made individuals increasingly aware of their own time. The railway made individuals increasingly aware of the time of others. The establishment of standard time finally made individuals servants to time, as legal timekeeping practices increasingly relied on highly precise measurements of time. The world of the late nineteenth century was therefore becoming increasingly synchronized.The development of modern timekeeping practices was not primarily driven by an abstract desire to pursue precision for its own sake. The advances in this domain were largely the result of individuals’ desire to participate in wider commercial, social, and administrative systems that required standardized measurements of time.

Conclusion: When Time Became a Way of Life

The history of the mechanical clock is in fact a history of new ways for people to relate to time. The medieval Europeans did not live in a timeless world but structured their days around the sun, seasons, agriculture, religion, bells and routine. What changed in the late middle ages and afterwards was the capacity to make one particular kind of time to measurable and counted value which is visible and powerful in everyday life.

The mechanical clock was an essential part of this process but its historical role cannot be reduced to a simple technological revolution. Public clocks were integrated into existing temporal orders complementing religious and natural cycles rather than replacing them. They gained importance as cities, commerce, the workplace and later transport networks, needed more precise temporal organisation. The history of time was not a history of the shift from "natural time" to "clock time", but rather extended the sphere of influence of measured and regularised time.

Industrialisation created new pressures for the measurement of labour and the clock became an instrument for regulating, recording and contesting working hours. The fact that workers often regulated their own working hours and followed traditional seasonal patterns. The modern approach to time was a product of the interactions between technology, institutions, economic actors and everyday practices.

The nineteeth century witnessed this shift being applied to a broader set of activities. With the introduction of the pocket watch, temporal responsibility was transferred to individuals . The railway timetable created an unprecedented need for coordinating events across space. The railway network was a distributed system, its stations located all over the country and requiring a shared understanding of time for efficient operation. This meant that railway companies were among the first to adopt a common measure for time (Greenwich Mean Time) and it became the standard everywhere else soon after.

This explains why punctuality is now such a ubiquitous demand in modern societies. The appointment, the timetable, the shift, the deadline, the class hour, the flight departure and the digital calendar all rest on the assumption of time being divisible and measurable. The modern world became accustomed to measuring time and organised life around measured time.The clock became powerful because institutions and individuals invested in its divisions and measures. It is therefore an instructive history of the modernity to realise how time shifted from being a regular pattern in nature into a distributed system regulating work, commerce, transport and individual behaviour.

References

Birth, Kevin K. 2022. “Capital Flows, Itinerant Laborers, and Time: A Revision of Thompson’s Thesis of Time and Work Discipline.” Time & Society 31 (3): 392–414. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961463X221083185.

Bradshaw, George. 1840. Bradshaw’s Railway Companion. London.

Dohrn-van Rossum, Gerhard. 1996. History of the Hour: Clocks and Modern Temporal Orders. Translated by Thomas Dunlap. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Esbester, Mike. 2009. “Nineteenth-Century Timetables and the History of Reading.” Book History 12: 156–185. https://doi.org/10.1353/bh.0.0018.

Gay, Hannah. 2003. “Clock Synchrony, Time Distribution and Electrical Timekeeping in Britain, 1880–1925.” Past & Present 181 (1): 107–140. https://doi.org/10.1093/past/181.1.107.

Glennie, Paul, and Nigel Thrift. 1996. “Reworking E. P. Thompson’s ‘Time, Work-Discipline and Industrial Capitalism.’” Time & Society 5 (3): 275–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961463X96005003001.

Glennie, Paul, and Nigel Thrift. 2009. Shaping the Day: A History of Timekeeping in England and Wales, 1300–1800. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Great Britain. 1880. Statutes (Definition of Time) Act 1880. 43 & 44 Vict. c. 9.

Hailwood, Mark. 2020. “Time and Work in Rural England, 1500–1700.” Past & Present 248 (1): 87–121. https://doi.org/10.1093/pastj/gtz065.

Landes, David S. 2000. Revolution in Time: Clocks and the Making of the Modern World. Rev. ed. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Le Goff, Jacques. 1960. “Au Moyen Âge: Temps de l’Église et Temps du Marchand.” Annales. Économies, Sociétés, Civilisations 15 (3): 417–433.

Le Goff, Jacques. 1980. Time, Work, and Culture in the Middle Ages. Translated by Arthur Goldhammer. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

McCrossen, Alexis. 2013. Marking Modern Times: A History of Clocks, Watches, and Other Timekeepers in American Life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Murphy, Anne Louise. 2017. “Clock-Watching: Work and Working Time at the Late Eighteenth-Century Bank of England.” Past & Present 236 (1): 99–132. https://doi.org/10.1093/pastj/gtx015.

North, John David. 2005. God’s Clockmaker: Richard of Wallingford and the Invention of Time. London: Hambledon and London.

Origo, Iris. 1957. The Merchant of Prato: Francesco di Marco Datini, 1335–1410. London: Jonathan Cape.

Reid, Douglas A. 1976. “The Decline of Saint Monday, 1766–1876.” Past & Present 71 (1): 76–101. https://doi.org/10.1093/past/71.1.76.

Rooney, David, and James Nye. 2009. “‘Greenwich Observatory Time for the Public Benefit’: Standard Time and Victorian Networks of Regulation.” British Journal for the History of Science 42 (1): 5–30. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000708740800157X.

Thompson, E. P. 1967. “Time, Work-Discipline, and Industrial Capitalism.” Past & Present 38 (1): 56–97. https://doi.org/10.1093/past/38.1.56.

Zerubavel, Eviatar. 1982. “The Standardization of Time: A Sociohistorical Perspective.” American Journal of Sociology 88 (1): 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1086/227631.