WhewellW., “Presidential address”, Report of the eleventh meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (London, 1842), xxvii–xxxv, p. xxxiv.
2.
GordonMrs, The life and correspondence of William Buckland (London, 1894), 81–83.
3.
The work under review, p. 12. Henceforth Science in culture.
4.
BrookeJ. H., “The natural theology of the geologists: Some theological strata”, in JordanovaL.PorterR. S. (eds), Images of the earth (Chalfont St Giles, 1979), 40–61, p. 42.
5.
ClarkJ. W.HughesT. M., The life and letters of the Reverend Adam Sedgwick (2 vols, Cambridge, 1890), ii, 47 (my italics).
6.
Science in culture, 77.
7.
CawoodJ., “Terrestrial magnetism and the development of international collaboration in the early nineteenth century”, Annals of science, xxxiv (1977), 551–87.
8.
HerschelJ. F. W., “Terrestrial magnetism”, in Herschel, Essays from the Edinburgh and Quarterly Reviews, with addresses and other pieces (London, 1847), 63–141, p. 66.
9.
CardwellD. S. L., From Watt to Clausius: The rise of thermodynamics in the early industrial age (London, 1971), 165, 291–3. See also SmithC. W., “A new chart for British natural philosophy: The development of energy physics in the nineteenth century”, History of science, xvi (1978), 231–79.
10.
HeimannP. M., “Mayer's concept of ‘force’: The ‘axis’ of a new science of physics”, Historical studies in the physical sciences, vii (1976), 277–96.
11.
CroslandM. P.SmithC. W., “The transmission of physics from France to Britain: 1800–1840”, Historical studies in the physical sciences, ix (1978), 1–61.
12.
CanevaK. L., “From galvanism to electrodynamics: The transformation of German physics and its social context”, ibid., 63–159.
13.
Most recently by PetersonM. J., The medical profession in mid-Victorian London (Berkeley, 1978).
14.
MorrellJ. B., “London institutions and Lyell's career: 1820–1841”, The British journal for the history of science, ix (1976), 132–46.
15.
PorterR. S., “Gentlemen and geology: The emergence of a scientific career, 1660–1920”, The historical journal, xxi (1978), 809–36.
16.
Science in culture, 150, 155, 210.
17.
Ibid., 167.
18.
Cannon, “History in depth: The early Victorian period”, History of science, iii (1964), 20–38, pp. 24–25. The paragraph is omitted in Science in culture, ch. 8, which is based on this 1964 article.
19.
Science in culture, 174.
20.
Ibid., 213.
21.
OrangeA. D., “The idols of the theatre: The British Association and its early critics”, Annals of science, xxxii (1975), 277–94.
22.
AllenD. E., The naturalist in Britain: A social history (Harmondsworth, 1978), 73–93.
23.
BermanM., Social change and scientific organisation: The Royal Institution, 1799–1844 (London, 1977).
24.
On Manchester, ThackrayA. W., “Natural knowledge in cultural context: The Manchester model”, American historical review, lxxix (1974), 672–709, and KargonR. H., Science in Victorian Manchester: Enterprise and expertise (Baltimore, 1977); on Hanley, one of the industrial Six Towns of the Potteries, ShapinS. A., “The Pottery Philosophical Society, 1819–1835: An examination of the cultural uses of provincial science”, Science studies, ii (1972), 311–36; on pre-industrial York, OrangeA. D., Philosophers and provincials: The Yorkshire Philosophical Society from 1822 to 1844 (York, 1973); on Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield and Derby, InksterI., “The social context of an educational movement: A revisionist approach to the English mechanics' institutes, 1820–1850”, Oxford review of education, ii (1976), 277–307.
25.
For a clear if controversial statement of the social control thesis, which is stronger than that of social interest, see ShapinS. A.BarnesS. B., “Science, nature, and control: Interpreting mechanics' institutes”, Social studies of science, vii (1977), 31–74.
26.
Science in culture, 173, is the most disarming confession.
27.
Science in culture, 255, reproducing Cannon, “History in depth” (ref. 18), 34.