Historians have unanimously credited Christopher Wren with having constructed a weather clock (a self-registering instrument) in the early 1660s. This conclusion was based on the account of the French diplomat Balthasar de Monconys, which included a sketch uncannily similar to an undated drawing by Wren of the weather clock. By critically re-examining the available sources, I argue that one can infer that Wren never actually constructed a weather clock. What Monconys saw and sketched was, in fact, a drawing produced by Wren for a meeting of the Royal Society that took place on 8 January 1662. I further show that there is strong evidence to assume that Wren's drawing for the Royal Society is the undated drawing preserved at the Royal Institute of British Architects. The new context in which I place Wren's drawing provides an incentive to look at it with fresh eyes. Though the drawing does not represent a device actually constructed by Wren, it still bears (unexpected) connections to the material world that surrounded him. The analysis of the drawing developed in this article will be relevant for historians interested in the role that images can play as historical evidence.

历史学家一致认为克里斯托弗·雷恩在 1660 年代初期建造了一个天气时钟（一种自我记录的仪器）。这个结论是基于法国外交官 Balthasar de Monconys 的描述，其中包括一张与 Wren 绘制的未注明日期的天气时钟惊人相似的草图。通过批判性地重新检查可用资源，我认为可以推断出雷恩实际上从未构建过天气时钟。事实上，Monconys 看到并绘制的是 Wren 为 1662 年 1 月 8 日举行的皇家学会会议绘制的一幅图画。这幅画保存在英国皇家建筑师学会。我放置 Wren' 的新环境 s 绘画提供了一种用新鲜的眼光看待它的动力。虽然这幅画并不代表雷恩实际建造的装置，但它仍然与周围的物质世界有（出乎意料的）联系。对本文中绘制的图画的分析将与对图像作为历史证据的作用感兴趣的历史学家相关。