Constructing a 'revolution in science': The campaign to promote a favourable reception for the 1919 solar eclipse experiments

British Journal for the History of Science

Volumn 35, Issue 4, 2002, Pages 439-467

  Sponsel, Alistair ^a  

^a PRINCETON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0041412687     PISSN: 00070874     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0007087402004818     Document Type: Article

References (116)

1. Very simply, the eclipse experiment was meant to test Albert Einstein's prediction, based on general relativity, that the path of starlight travelling to Earth would be deflected a specific amount by the Sun's gravitational field. The test was done during a total solar eclipse so that stars would be visible whose light passed near the perimeter of the Sun. Under normal circumstances, stars behind the sun are invisible because of the intensity of sunlight.
2. 'Revolution in science', The Times, 7 November 1919, 12.
3. J. Earman and C. Glymour, 'Relativity and eclipses: the British eclipse expeditions of 1919 and their predecessors', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences (1980), 11, 49-85.
4. In fact, Earman and Glymour explain that the very reason Eddington was recruited into the eclipse expeditions was to help him avoid being treated as ignominiously as other conscientious objectors.
5. Earman and Glymour, op. cit. (3), 85.
6. Earman and Glymour, op. cit. (3), 49.
7. The notion of a 'crucial instance', 'crucial test' or 'crucial experiment' that can distinguish definitively between two or more alternative theories or hypotheses, dates back to seventeenth-century natural philosophy. Though this concept was generally consented to through the nineteenth century, during the twentieth century the validity of crucial experiments was called into question in several branches of science studies. Pierre Duhem argued in 1906 that no physics experiment could be crucial in this sense because it would be impossible to 'enumerate completely the various hypotheses which may cover a determinate group of phenomena'. Building on the Kuhnian notion that scientific theories are only functional within the socially defined bounds of a given disciplinary matrix (paradigm), sociologists of scientific knowledge have argued that no experimental result is inherently meaningful, but can only be significant to those who share a common perception of the relation between observation and theory. Furthermore, of course, the perception of the degree of accuracy of empirical data is always subject to historical revision like that done by Earman and Glymour.
8. Rob Iliffe, 'Philosophical jostling: cavilling, flurting, and the perils of print', unpublished typescript. The issue of credibility was important in this instance as well. Simon Schaffer has argued that Newton's credibility as an experimenter was much higher in later years (1710s), when a wider audience did view Newton's experiment as crucial, than during the early years of the debate.
9. Simon Schaffer, 'Glass works: Newton's prisms and the uses of experiment', in The Uses of Experiment (ed. D. Gooding, T. Pinch and S. Schaffer), Cambridge, 1989, 67-104.
10. Rob Iliffe, '"Aplatisseur du Monde et de Cassini": Maupertuis, precision measurement, and the shape of the Earth in the 1730s', History of Science (1993), 31, 336.
11. Iliffe, op. cit. (9), 365, 366. My italics.
12. Earman and Glymour, op. cit. (3), 84.
13. A. S. Eddington, 'Forty years of astronomy', in Background to Modern Science (ed. Joseph Needham and Walter Pagel), Cambridge, 1938, 142.
14. Andrew Warwick, Masters of Theory, Chicago, forthcoming, Chapter 9.
15. Marshall Missner, 'Why Einstein became famous in America', Social Studies of Science (1985) 15, 267-91 (original italics). On public fascination with Einstein, see also A. J. Friedman and C. C. Donley, Einstein as Myth and Muse, Cambridge, 1985.
16. Marshall Missner, 'Why Einstein became famous in America', Social Studies of Science (1985) 15, 267-91 (original italics). On public fascination with Einstein, see also A. J. Friedman and C. C. Donley, Einstein as Myth and Muse, Cambridge, 1985.
17. Missner, op. cit. (14), 270. Missner's analysis of the role of newspapers in the spread of Einstein's fame is drawn largely from comparative readings of the journals themselves. Missner's paper does not mention that there are two secondary accounts of how The New York Times got hold of the joint meeting story from London. See Hillier Krieghbaum, 'American newspaper reporting of science news', Kansas State College Bulletin (15 August 1941), XXV, 1-73; and Meyer Berger, The Story of The New York Times 1851-1951, New York, 1951. Taken in tandem, these reports are enigmatic since they disagree on a crucial point. (Both accounts are anecdotal and difficult to corroborate.) Berger makes the extraordinary claim that the impetus to cover the story came from New York in advance of the joint meeting, on the instruction of Carr Van Anda, a mathematics enthusiast who was the managing editor of The New York Times. I am hesitant to put much faith in this account, since Berger makes several factual errors such as placing the date of the joint meeting two days late on 8 November. Krieghbaum states that The New York Times' London correspondent (according to Berger, this man was a golf reporter named Henry Charles Crouch) took notice of the joint meeting coverage in London and wired a notice about it to Van Anda, who only then encouraged him to follow up on the story. It appears that Crouch's vigilance allowed The New York Times to cover the joint meeting on 9 November, one day earlier than other US newspapers (see Missner for the dates of the first US coverage). Many thanks to Matt Lavine for directing me to these sources.
18. Missner, op. cit. (14), 270. Missner's analysis of the role of newspapers in the spread of Einstein's fame is drawn largely from comparative readings of the journals themselves. Missner's paper does not mention that there are two secondary accounts of how The New York Times got hold of the joint meeting story from London. See Hillier Krieghbaum, 'American newspaper reporting of science news', Kansas State College Bulletin (15 August 1941), XXV, 1-73; and Meyer Berger, The Story of The New York Times 1851-1951, New York, 1951. Taken in tandem, these reports are enigmatic since they disagree on a crucial point. (Both accounts are anecdotal and difficult to corroborate.) Berger makes the extraordinary claim that the impetus to cover the story came from New York in advance of the joint meeting, on the instruction of Carr Van Anda, a mathematics enthusiast who was the managing editor of The New York Times. I am hesitant to put much faith in this account, since Berger makes several factual errors such as placing the date of the joint meeting two days late on 8 November. Krieghbaum states that The New York Times' London correspondent (according to Berger, this man was a golf reporter named Henry Charles Crouch) took notice of the joint meeting coverage in London and wired a notice about it to Van Anda, who only then encouraged him to follow up on the story. It appears that Crouch's vigilance allowed The New York Times to cover the joint meeting on 9 November, one day earlier than other US newspapers (see Missner for the dates of the first US coverage). Many thanks to Matt Lavine for directing me to these sources.
19. Missner, op. cit. (14), 270. Missner's analysis of the role of newspapers in the spread of Einstein's fame is drawn largely from comparative readings of the journals themselves. Missner's paper does not mention that there are two secondary accounts of how The New York Times got hold of the joint meeting story from London. See Hillier Krieghbaum, 'American newspaper reporting of science news', Kansas State College Bulletin (15 August 1941), XXV, 1-73; and Meyer Berger, The Story of The New York Times 1851-1951, New York, 1951. Taken in tandem, these reports are enigmatic since they disagree on a crucial point. (Both accounts are anecdotal and difficult to corroborate.) Berger makes the extraordinary claim that the impetus to cover the story came from New York in advance of the joint meeting, on the instruction of Carr Van Anda, a mathematics enthusiast who was the managing editor of The New York Times. I am hesitant to put much faith in this account, since Berger makes several factual errors such as placing the date of the joint meeting two days late on 8 November. Krieghbaum states that The New York Times' London correspondent (according to Berger, this man was a golf reporter named Henry Charles Crouch) took notice of the joint meeting coverage in London and wired a notice about it to Van Anda, who only then encouraged him to follow up on the story. It appears that Crouch's vigilance allowed The New York Times to cover the joint meeting on 9 November, one day earlier than other US newspapers (see Missner for the dates of the first US coverage). Many thanks to Matt Lavine for directing me to these sources.
20. 'Coming eclipse of the Sun', The Times, 13 January 1919, 8.
21. 'Solar eclipse next month', The Times, 22 April 1919, 16.
22. 'Eclipse of the Sun to-day', The Times, 29 May 1919, 14.
23. 'The eclipse', The Times, 4 June 1919, 12.
24. 'The eclipse of the Sun', The Times, 5 June 1919, 16.
25. 'Photographs of the eclipse', The Times, 9 September 1919, 12.
26. Contributors Department's marked copies of The Times, TNL Archive, News International plc. I am deeply indebted to Nicholas Mays, deputy archivist of News International, for finding these records.
27. J. A. Venn, Alumni Cantabrigienses Part II, Vol. 5, Cambridge, 1953, 418.
28. According to Nicholas Mays, deputy archivist of News International, Press releases are a ... recent invention. Those wishing to seek publication of information would have contacted newspapers or journalists directly by letter or telephone. The alternative was to contact news agencies such as [Press Association] or Reuters whose news service would have provided a general conduit for the spread of information. Nicholas Mays, personal correspondence with the author.
29. In an article he wrote after the joint meeting (The Times, 8 November 1919, 12), Long refers to his having interviewed Dyson for the September article.
30. The Times' archivist Nicholas Mays supports this interpretation: I can confirm ... that The Times did not have a correspondent with the expedition or use a correspondent based locally to the expedition's base. ... As to how the information came to be published in the newspaper ... the sponsors of the expedition would be the obvious source of the information which would no doubt have been provided to all interested editorial departments. Hollis would also have been an obvious conduit. Nicholas Mays, personal correspondence with the author.
31. A. C. D. Crommelin, 'The eclipse of the Sun on May 29', Nature, 6 February 1919, 444-6.
32. Science, 14 March 1919.
33. Engineering: An Illustrated Weekly Journal, 8 February 1918, 153-4.
34. These quotations come from the account in Engineering (hence the third-person references).
35. Engineering: An Illustrated Weekly Journal, op. cit. (29).
36. The discrepancy between Newton values of 0.83″ and 0.87″ is based on the use of slightly different values for the constants in the equations from which the Newton value is derived. See Earman and Glymour, op. cit. (3), 52.
37. 'Report on the meeting of the Association held on Wednesday, November 27, 1918, at Sion College, Victoria Embankment, E.C', Journal of the British Astronomical Association (1918-19), 29, 35-9. Original italics.
38. Daylight saving was a controversial topic at this time. Although in 1907 London builder William Willett proposed advancing the clocks eighty minutes during summer months the first nations to institute daylight saving were Britain's enemies during the Great War. Germany and Austria advanced clocks one hour on 30 April 1916 as a wartime fuel-saving measure; other European nations including Britain followed suit within the next month. However, daylight saving time was abandoned after the war, only to be reintroduced in the 1920s.
39. Mary Terrall, 'Representing the Earth's shape: the polemics surrounding Maupertuis's expedition to Lapland', Isis (1992), 83, 218-37.
40. J. Evershed, Letter to the Editors, 'The Einstein effect and the eclipse of 1919 May 29', Observatory (1917), 515, 269-70.
41. Robert Jonckheere, Letter to the Editors, 'The apparent deflection of stars near the sun as a proof of Einstein's theory of gravitation', Observatory (1918), 526, 215-16.
42. A. S. Eddington, 'The total eclipse of 1919 May 29 and the influence of gravitation on light', Observatory (1919), 537, 119.
43. A. S. Eddington, op. cit. (37), 122.
44. Iliffe, op. cit. (9), 367.
45. For a concise review of prior attempts to measure the Einstein effect, see Earman and Glymour, op. cit. (3), 60-71.
46. For an account of Eddington's first solar eclipse expedition (to view the eclipse of 10 October 1912) see Chapter 4 of A. V. Douglas, The Life of Arthur Stanley Eddington, London, 1956.
47. A. S. Eddington, op. cit. (37).
48. Iliffe, op. cit. (9), 366.
49. 'The solar eclipse of 1919 May 29', Observatory (1919), 539, 217.
50. 'STOP PRESS NEWS', Observatory (1919), 540, 256.
51. 'Eclipse news', Observatory (1919), 541, 290.
52. For a detailed discussion of the Lick results, which were never published, see Earman and Glymour, op. cit. (3), 60-71.
53. 'Meeting of the Royal Astronomical Society', Observatory (1919), 542, 297-9. Dyson's interpretation of Eddington's mood was different than Eddington's own. By this time Eddington had experienced what he recalled as the greatest moment of his life, when 'the one plate that I measured [while still in Principe] gave a result agreeing with Einstein'. (Quoted from Eddington's notebook in Douglas, op. cit. (41), 40-1.)
54. 'Meeting of the Royal Astronomical Society', Observatory (1919), 542, 297-9. Dyson's interpretation of Eddington's mood was different than Eddington's own. By this time Eddington had experienced what he recalled as the greatest moment of his life, when 'the one plate that I measured [while still in Principe] gave a result agreeing with Einstein'. (Quoted from Eddington's notebook in Douglas, op. cit. (41), 40-1.)
55. Report of the British Association, 1919, 156.
56. Report of the British Association, 1919, 156.
57. Report of the British Association, 1919, 156.
58. 'Astronomy at the British Association', Observatory (October 1919), 544, 365.
59. Report of the British Association, 1919, 156.
60. 'Astronomy at the British Association', op. cit. (52), 365. It receives six lines of mention in nearly two pages addressed to Eddington's talk and discussion.
61. Report of the British Association, 1919, 156. My italics.
62. British astronomers made over two dozen eclipse expeditions between 1860 and 1914. For an excellent account of this phenomenon, see Alex Pang, 'The social event of the season: solar eclipse expeditions and Victorian culture', Isis (1993), 8-4, 252-77.
63. Royal Society Minutes of Council 1898-1903, Vol. 8, Royal Society Library, London.
64. Royal Society Minutes of Council 1898-1903, op. cit. (57).
65. 2V Club announcement is not common knowledge in the secondary literature; it is mentioned in the context of Eddington's relativity teaching at Cambridge in Warwick, op. cit. (13), Chapter 9, the source to which I owe my knowledge of the event.
66. Royal Society Minutes of Council, Vol. II, 1914-20, Royal Society Library, London.
67. Matthew Stanley, personal correspondence with the author, and Matthew Stanley, '"An expedition to heal the wounds and desolation of war": British astronomy, the Great War and the 1919 eclipse', Isis, forthcoming. Stanley sheds a great deal of light on the source of Eddington's public relations savvy and offers new insight into the process by which Eddington reduced the expeditions' data.
68. 2V Club in advance of his meeting with Dyson. Full citations for the letters of 7 October and 21 October may be found in Stanley, op. cit. (61). Thanks to Matt Stanley and Adam Perkins of the RGO archives for passing along information about these letters.
69. There were seventeen attendees at the 22 October meeting: H. F. Baker, A. S. Eddington, J. A. Crowther, G. F. C. Searle, E. Cunningham, C. T. R. Wilson, H. Jeffreys, W. M. H. Greaves, J. E. P. Wagstaff, F. P. White, G. H. Henderson, A. L. McAulay, W. M. Smart, E. A. Milne, S. Lees, A. R. McLeod and L. A. Pars.
70. Andrew Warwick, 'Cambridge mathematics and Cavendish physics: Cunningham, Campbell and Einstein's relativity 1905-1911. Part I: The uses of theory', Studies in History and Philosophy of Science (1992) 23, 625-56, 626.
71. Ebenezer Cunningham, Principle of Relativity, Cambridge, 1914.
72. Andrew Warwick, 'Cambridge mathematics and Cavendish physics: Cunningham, Campbell and Einstein's relativity 1905-1911. Part II: Comparing traditions in Cambridge physics', Studies in History and Philosophy of Science (1993), 24, 1-25. Although Searle received an unsolicited copy of a paper on relativity directly from Einstein in 1909, Warwick shows that at the time Searle 'found the work unimportant and impenetrable' (ibid., 14). However, he may have passed the paper to Norman Campbell, his colleague at the Cavendish Laboratory whose publications began to reveal his familiarity with Einstein's work beginning in September 1909 (ibid., 18).
73. D. R. Taunt, 'L A Pars', Bulletin of the London Mathematical Society (1986), 18, 505-8. Warwick, op. cit. (13), Chapter 9.
74. D. R. Taunt, 'L A Pars', Bulletin of the London Mathematical Society (1986), 18, 505-8. Warwick, op. cit. (13), Chapter 9.
75. Andrew Warwick has made an extremely close examination of the transfer of both special and general relativity to Cambridge, which was Britain's leading centre for mathematical physics training and research. In Warwick, op. cit. (64), he argues that Cambridge mathematical physicists (exemplified by Cunningham) interpreted Einstein's 1905 paper on special relativity in a manner uniquely conditioned by local training in and research on the electronic theory of matter. In Warwick, op. cit. (66), he compares the Cambridge mathematical-physicist reading of Einstein to that of Cambridge experimental physicists (exemplified by Norman Campbell) who viewed special relativity as a new theory of measurement. Warwick's study of the ways in which various Cambridge physicists interpreted Einstein's paper in ways that were useful to their own work is shaped by his contention that immediately after 1905 there was no essential Einsteinian theory of special relativity for physicists to 'receive'. For an account of 'the complex process through which in Germany ... many relativities with many histories could become singular ... and through which the work of Einstein came to be sharply distinguished from that of others' see Richard Staley, 'On the histories of relativity: the propagation and elaboration of relativity theory in participant histories in Germany, 1905-1911', Isis (1998), 89, 263-99. In Warwick, op. cit. (13), Chapter 9, he extends his treatment to incorporate general relativity, focusing on Eddington. Warwick claims that among similarly trained Cambridge mathematical physicists Eddington's unusual affinity for and success with general relativity can be attributed largely to his perspective as an astronomer. This allowed him to ignore general relativity's ominous implication for the ether, to which many other Cambridge mathematical physicists were committed.
76. Andrew Warwick has made an extremely close examination of the transfer of both special and general relativity to Cambridge, which was Britain's leading centre for mathematical physics training and research. In Warwick, op. cit. (64), he argues that Cambridge mathematical physicists (exemplified by Cunningham) interpreted Einstein's 1905 paper on special relativity in a manner uniquely conditioned by local training in and research on the electronic theory of matter. In Warwick, op. cit. (66), he compares the Cambridge mathematical-physicist reading of Einstein to that of Cambridge experimental physicists (exemplified by Norman Campbell) who viewed special relativity as a new theory of measurement. Warwick's study of the ways in which various Cambridge physicists interpreted Einstein's paper in ways that were useful to their own work is shaped by his contention that immediately after 1905 there was no essential Einsteinian theory of special relativity for physicists to 'receive'. For an account of 'the complex process through which in Germany ... many relativities with many histories could become singular ... and through which the work of Einstein came to be sharply distinguished from that of others' see Richard Staley, 'On the histories of relativity: the propagation and elaboration of relativity theory in participant histories in Germany, 1905-1911', Isis (1998), 89, 263-99. In Warwick, op. cit. (13), Chapter 9, he extends his treatment to incorporate general relativity, focusing on Eddington. Warwick claims that among similarly trained Cambridge mathematical physicists Eddington's unusual affinity for and success with general relativity can be attributed largely to his perspective as an astronomer. This allowed him to ignore general relativity's ominous implication for the ether, to which many other Cambridge mathematical physicists were committed.
77. Andrew Warwick has made an extremely close examination of the transfer of both special and general relativity to Cambridge, which was Britain's leading centre for mathematical physics training and research. In Warwick, op. cit. (64), he argues that Cambridge mathematical physicists (exemplified by Cunningham) interpreted Einstein's 1905 paper on special relativity in a manner uniquely conditioned by local training in and research on the electronic theory of matter. In Warwick, op. cit. (66), he compares the Cambridge mathematical-physicist reading of Einstein to that of Cambridge experimental physicists (exemplified by Norman Campbell) who viewed special relativity as a new theory of measurement. Warwick's study of the ways in which various Cambridge physicists interpreted Einstein's paper in ways that were useful to their own work is shaped by his contention that immediately after 1905 there was no essential Einsteinian theory of special relativity for physicists to 'receive'. For an account of 'the complex process through which in Germany ... many relativities with many histories could become singular ... and through which the work of Einstein came to be sharply distinguished from that of others' see Richard Staley, 'On the histories of relativity: the propagation and elaboration of relativity theory in participant histories in Germany, 1905-1911', Isis (1998), 89, 263-99. In Warwick, op. cit. (13), Chapter 9, he extends his treatment to incorporate general relativity, focusing on Eddington. Warwick claims that among similarly trained Cambridge mathematical physicists Eddington's unusual affinity for and success with general relativity can be attributed largely to his perspective as an astronomer. This allowed him to ignore general relativity's ominous implication for the ether, to which many other Cambridge mathematical physicists were committed.
78. Andrew Warwick has made an extremely close examination of the transfer of both special and general relativity to Cambridge, which was Britain's leading centre for mathematical physics training and research. In Warwick, op. cit. (64), he argues that Cambridge mathematical physicists (exemplified by Cunningham) interpreted Einstein's 1905 paper on special relativity in a manner uniquely conditioned by local training in and research on the electronic theory of matter. In Warwick, op. cit. (66), he compares the Cambridge mathematical-physicist reading of Einstein to that of Cambridge experimental physicists (exemplified by Norman Campbell) who viewed special relativity as a new theory of measurement. Warwick's study of the ways in which various Cambridge physicists interpreted Einstein's paper in ways that were useful to their own work is shaped by his contention that immediately after 1905 there was no essential Einsteinian theory of special relativity for physicists to 'receive'. For an account of 'the complex process through which in Germany ... many relativities with many histories could become singular ... and through which the work of Einstein came to be sharply distinguished from that of others' see Richard Staley, 'On the histories of relativity: the propagation and elaboration of relativity theory in participant histories in Germany, 1905-1911', Isis (1998), 89, 263-99. In Warwick, op. cit. (13), Chapter 9, he extends his treatment to incorporate general relativity, focusing on Eddington. Warwick claims that among similarly trained Cambridge mathematical physicists Eddington's unusual affinity for and success with general relativity can be attributed largely to his perspective as an astronomer. This allowed him to ignore general relativity's ominous implication for the ether, to which many other Cambridge mathematical physicists were committed.
79. 2V Club.
80. W. H. McCrea, 'Edward Arthur Milne', Obituary Notices of Fellows of the Royal Society of London (1950-1), 7, 421-43.
81. As I will discuss below, there is unfortunately no record of which I am aware that lists the identity or even the number of attendees of the joint meeting.
82. Cambridge links many actors in this paper. The three stalwarts of the JPEC, Dyson, Crommelin and Eddington, were all graduates of Cambridge. Henry Park Hollis, who conveyed news of their work to the public via The Times, was also a Cambridge graduate.
83. Ebenezer Cunningham, 'Einstein's relativity theory of gravitation', 3 parts, Nature, 4 December 1919, 354-6; 11 December 1919, 374-6; 18 December 1919, 394-5.
84. The meeting took place 'in the rooms of the Royal Society', which were in Burlington House, Piccadilly, from 1857 to 1967. A paper by D. C. Martin on 'Former homes of the Royal Society', Notes and Records of the Royal Society (September 1967), 22, 12-19 shows a floor-plan giving dimensions of the 'Meeting Room' (45 feet by 36 feet) and two photographs taken from the rear of the room showing that seating was in pews. Because the room had columns along either side that appear on the floor-plan and in the photographs, one can be confident that the photos show the full seating capacity of eight pews on either side of a central aisle. If the room was crowded, as it apparently was at the joint meeting (see, for example, R. W. Clark, Einstein: The Life and Times, New York, 1971, 232), the pews could have held about one hundred people. There was room for perhaps thirty or forty people to stand, if necessary, plus a large (29 feet by 36 feet) anteroom adjacent to the meeting room where overflow capacity could have stood. Thanks to Andy Warwick for suggesting this estimation method, and many thanks to the ever-helpful Peter Hingley of the RAS and to Clara Anderson of the RS who directed me toward the Martin article.
85. The meeting took place 'in the rooms of the Royal Society', which were in Burlington House, Piccadilly, from 1857 to 1967. A paper by D. C. Martin on 'Former homes of the Royal Society', Notes and Records of the Royal Society (September 1967), 22, 12-19 shows a floor-plan giving dimensions of the 'Meeting Room' (45 feet by 36 feet) and two photographs taken from the rear of the room showing that seating was in pews. Because the room had columns along either side that appear on the floor-plan and in the photographs, one can be confident that the photos show the full seating capacity of eight pews on either side of a central aisle. If the room was crowded, as it apparently was at the joint meeting (see, for example, R. W. Clark, Einstein: The Life and Times, New York, 1971, 232), the pews could have held about one hundred people. There was room for perhaps thirty or forty people to stand, if necessary, plus a large (29 feet by 36 feet) anteroom adjacent to the meeting room where overflow capacity could have stood. Thanks to Andy Warwick for suggesting this estimation method, and many thanks to the ever-helpful Peter Hingley of the RAS and to Clara Anderson of the RS who directed me toward the Martin article.
86. This quotation is from The Times' account. The Times, 7 November 1919, 12.
87. A. N. Whitehead, Science and the Modern World, Cambridge, 1926, 15.
88. 'Joint eclipse meeting of the Royal Society and the Royal Astronomical Society', The Observatory (1919), 545, 391.
89. 'Joint eclipse meeting', op. cit. (77), 389-98, 393. Original italics.
90. Earman and Glymour, op. cit. (3), 76-81.
91. 'Joint eclipse meeting', op. cit. (77), 394.
92. 'Sir Oliver Lodge's caution. To the editor of The Times', The Times, 8 November 1919, 12.
93. 'Joint eclipse meeting', op. cit. (77), 396-7. Original italics.
94. 'Joint eclipse meeting', op. cit. (77), 398. Original italics.
95. 'Joint eclipse meeting', op. cit. (77), 398.
96. S. Chandrasekhar, Eddington: The Most Distinguished Astrophysicist of His Time, Cambridge, 1983, 30.
97. As I mentioned above, it was only through the generous help of Nicholas Mays that I learned of the existence of The Times 'marked copies', op. cit. (22).
98. Mitchell's obituary may be found in The Times, 3 July 1945, 7. After 1922 he maintained a relation with The Times as scientific correspondent.
99. On Pritchard, see Alex Pang, op. cit. (56). On his relation to Mitchell, see any Who's Who entry on Mitchell.
100. D. P. Crook, 'Peter Chalmers Mitchell and antiwar evolutionism in Britain during the Great War', Journal of the History of Biology (1989), 22, 325-56. According to Mitchell's 'restrictionist' approach to evolutionary theory, biological 'laws' should not be extrapolated to determine rules of human conduct (thus war should not be justified as a nature-mandated struggle for existence).
101. Crook, op. cit. (89), 343.
102. In a famous passage, Eddington urged his colleagues to think 'not of a symbolic German, but of your former friend Prof. X, for instance - call him Hun, pirate, baby-killer, and try to work up a little fury. The attempt breaks down ludicrously'. Eddington, 'The future of international science', Observatory (1916), 501, 271.
103. Crook, op. cit. (89).
104. In his autobiography Lodge noted that they were both appealing writers. He found their work in 'Nature or The Times [which he read] with the intention of devouring Jeans or Eddington or Chalmers Mitchell, or whatever the attractive article is'. Oliver Lodge, Past Years, New York, 1932, 112.
105. These are Eddington's own words in a widely quoted letter to Einstein (Eddington to Einstein, 1 December 1919). See Abraham Pais, 'Subtle is the Lord ...': The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein, New York, 1982, 306.
106. Punch, 19 November 1919, 422.
107. 'Revolution in science', The Times, 8 November 1919.
108. This is one of several 'newly uncovered' verses of the 'Astronomer's drinking song' that were published in the Observatory following the ioint meeting. The rest can be found in 'From an Oxford note-book', Observatory (1919), 546, 25.
109. Bruno Latour, The Pasteurization of France, Cambridge, MA, 1988.
110. For a discussion of Eddington's teaching of general relativity, of reasons why Eddington may have been sympathetic to Einstein's theory, and of the elements of his training that allowed him to master relativity, see Warwick, op. cit. (13), Chapter 9.
111. Stanley, op. cit. (61), makes a convincing argument that Eddington's portrayal of the eclipse expeditions was conditioned by his familiarity with Quaker anti-war publicity.
112. Eddington, Space, Time, and Gravitation, Cambridge, 1923, 127-8.
113. When asked in 1919 what he would have said if the eclipse experiments had failed to show the light deflection he predicted, Einstein reputedly answered, 'Then I would have to pity the dear Lord. The theory is correct anyway.' Pais, op. cit. (94), 30.
114. Again Eddington and Pasteur may be likened here with respect to Pasteur's experiments on spontaneous generation, which he was convinced did not take place. Pasteur defined seemingly spontaneous growth as contamination of his experiments. In a manner that seems comparable to Eddington, 'Pasteur was so committed in his opposition to spontaneous generation that he preferred to believe there was some unknown flaw in his work than to publish the results'. H. Collins and T. Pinch, The Golem: What You Should Know about Science, 2nd edn., Cambridge, 1998. This raises the problem of the 'experimenter's regress'. For an excellent discussion of that phenomenon in relation to Newton's prism experiments, see Simon Schaffer, op. cit. (8).
115. Again Eddington and Pasteur may be likened here with respect to Pasteur's experiments on spontaneous generation, which he was convinced did not take place. Pasteur defined seemingly spontaneous growth as contamination of his experiments. In a manner that seems comparable to Eddington, 'Pasteur was so committed in his opposition to spontaneous generation that he preferred to believe there was some unknown flaw in his work than to publish the results'. H. Collins and T. Pinch, The Golem: What You Should Know about Science, 2nd edn., Cambridge, 1998. This raises the problem of the 'experimenter's regress'. For an excellent discussion of that phenomenon in relation to Newton's prism experiments, see Simon Schaffer, op. cit. (8).
116. Eddington recounted this quip in 'Forty years of astronomy', op. cit. (12), 142.