As we saw in Chapter 4, Ganot's physique was shaped by the forms of production of the Traité and the Cours and by Ganot's perspectives on the discipline of physics and on its relations with pedagogical practice. Ganot's physique did not place a fundamental emphasis on theory and was sophisticated in its exposition of physical practice and its associated uncertainties and opposing views. It was inductivist and pedagogically instrumentalist and had a strong focus on instrument description and manipulation. This approach was shaped by the techniques of printing and illustration used by Ganot and his associates.

In the previous chapter we have seen that the preparation of an English edition of Ganot's Traité was part of a general plan of appropriation of the French scientific and medical map of knowledge into Britain, led by the publisher Hippolyte Baillière. Baillière was the brains behind this operation which provided Ganot's physique in England with the status of standard scientific work, composed by a precise, powerful and attractive textual and visual exposition.

In assuming the lead in the making of Ganot's physique in England, after Baillière's death, Atkinson strengthened his authorial status, marking a decisive moment in the configuration of Atkinson's physics. However, what were the differences and common aspects between Atkinson's physics and Ganot's physique? What was the role of Longmans in the configuration of Atkinson's physics? And how did the forms of production of Atkinson's textbooks intervene in the making of his physics?