Review of Victorian Popularizers of Science: Designing Nature for New Audiences; Science in the Marketplace: Nineteenth-Century Sites and Experiences
Name
Ritvo-2010-Victorian Popularize.pdf
Size
151.01 KB
Format
Adobe PDF
Checksum (MD5)
b991bba5478c710dfaf48c36f1557911
Author(s)
Ritvo, Harriet
Date Issued
June 2010
Journal
Nineteenth-Century Literature
Publisher
University of California Press
Citation
Ritvo, Harriet. "Review of: Bernard Lightman, Victorian Popularizers
of Science: Designing Nature for New Audiences. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 2007. Pp. xviii + 545; Aileen Fyfe and Bernard Lightman,
eds., Science in the Marketplace: Nineteenth-Century Sites and Experiences.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007. Pp. x + 410." Ninteenth-Century Literature, 65.1 (June 2010) p.120-122. © 2010 by The Regents of the University of California.
Version
Final published version
Abstract
Bernard Lightman, Victorian Popularizers
of Science: Designing Nature for New Audiences. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 2007. Pp. xviii + 545. $45.
Aileen Fyfe and Bernard Lightman,
eds., Science in the Marketplace: Nineteenth-Century Sites and Experiences.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007. Pp. x + 410. $45.
The Darwin year showed clearly that, at least
in 2009, science was far from the exclusive preserve of scientists. The
bicentenary of Darwin’s birth and the sesquicentenary of the publication
of his most important book were celebrated on a global scale. His
scientific heirs observed these anniversaries with predictable scholarly
pomp and circumstance. More striking were the number and scale of
commemorations directed to the general public, as well as the enthusiasm
with which they were received. Along with a spate of new and resuscitated
books came lectures, conferences, tours, and exhibits. Every
institution with a link to the man or his theory eagerly joined in the
celebration—which is not, of course, to say that either Charles Darwin
or his theory of evolution by natural selection has been universally embraced.
It remains controversial outside the scientific community—in
some ways more controversial than it was when originally proposed.
MIT Department
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Humanities. History Section
Terms of Use
Article is made available in accordance with the publisher's policy and may be subject to US copyright law. Please refer to the publisher's site for terms of use.
Persistent DSpace Link
DOI of Published Version
https://doi.org/10.1525/ncl.2010.65.1.120
