White Rose University Consortium logo
University of Leeds logo University of Sheffield logo York University logo

Cry "Good for history, Cambridge and Saint George"? Essay Review of Mary Jo Nye (Ed.); The Cambridge History of Science, Vol. 5. The Modern Physical and Mathematical Sciences, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003)

Gooday, G. (2004) Cry "Good for history, Cambridge and Saint George"? Essay Review of Mary Jo Nye (Ed.); The Cambridge History of Science, Vol. 5. The Modern Physical and Mathematical Sciences, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003). Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 35 (4). pp. 861-872. ISSN 0039-3681

Full text available as:
[img]
Preview
Text
History_and_Saint_George_Essay_review.pdf
Available under License : See the attached licence file.

Download (101Kb)

Abstract

FIRST PARAGRAPH This volume is the third thus far published of The Cambridge history of science, planned in eight parts over the last decade by Cambridge University Press. Noting the incompleteness of George Sarton’s heroic solo endeavour on a comparably magisterial scale (Sarton, 1953–1959), Cambridge general editors David Lindberg and Ronald Numbers adopted a more pragmatic multiple author approach in devising this new series. They devote the four latter volumes to that fertile wonder ‘modern science’, its modernity construed chronologically as the post-1800 era. While Volume 6 encompasses the biological and earth sciences ( Bowler & Pickstone, forthcoming), Volume 7 deals with the social sciences ( Porter & Ross, 2003), and Volume 8 examines the sciences in national and international setting ( Livingstone & Numbers, forthcoming). Lindberg and Numbers thus circumscribe the territory of Volume 5 to be the history of physics, chemistry, astronomy and mathematics in the Euro-American world. Although this might seem a fairly conventional—even conservative—subject clustering, few historians would have felt undaunted by the heterogeneity of such material, the narrowness of the brief and the long two-century period of coverage. This volume must therefore be judged with sensitivity to the difficulties of leading thirty-seven scholars in diverse specialisms to produce a coherent product, and the sheer impracticability of Sarton’s near-Shakespearean ambitions for unitary drama. Useful comparisons can thus be made with recent works that offer a multi-perspectival view over comparably broad terrain: John Krige and Dominic Pestre’s stimulating and uncomplacent Science in the twentieth century (1997), and the more radically inclusive bibliographical essays in Arne Hessenbruch (Ed.), The reader’s guide to the history of science (Hessenbruch, 2000).

Item Type: Article
Copyright, Publisher and Additional Information: © 2004 Elsevier. This is an author produced version of a paper published in Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, Part A. Uploaded in accordance with the publisher's self-archiving policy.
Academic Units: The University of Leeds > Faculty of Arts (Leeds) > School of Humanities (Leeds) > School of Philosophy (Leeds)
Depositing User: Leeds Philosophy Department
Date Deposited: 12 Oct 2007 16:19
Last Modified: 08 Feb 2013 17:07
Published Version: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2004.08.006
Status: Published
Publisher: Elsevier
Refereed: Yes
Identification Number: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2004.08.006
URI: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/id/eprint/3227

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item