This paper argues for continuity in purpose and specific results between some hand drawn nebulae, especially those ‘descriptive maps’ by John F. W. Herschel and E. P. Mason in the late 1830s, and the first photographs made of the nebulae in the 1880s. Using H. H. Turners’ explication in 1904 of the three great advantages of astrophotography, the paper concludes that to some extent Herschel’s and Mason’s hand-drawings of the nebulae were meant to achieve the same kinds of results. (...) This is surprising not only because such drawings were conceived and achieved over forty-years earlier, but also because the procedures used in the production of these pictorially and metrically rich images were those directly inspired by cartography, geodesy, and land-surveying. Such drawings provided the standard for what was depicted, expected and aimed at by way of successful representations of the nebulae; standards that seemed to have been used to judge the success of nebular photographs. Being conditions of expectation and possibility for later photography, these drawings were themselves made possible by such techniques of representation and measurement as isolines and triangulation, so fundamental to Imperial and ‘Humboltian science.’Keywords: Ebenezer Porter Mason; Cartography; Draughtsmanship; Observation; Scientific Representation; Philosophy of Scientific Practice. (shrink)

Dan Falk, the author of this engaging if informal book, is a science journalist, broadcaster, and freelance writer, whose achievements merited him a Knight Science Journalism Fellowship at MIT in 2011–2012. Full disclosure imperatives require me to acknowledge having met him on an eclipse expedition to Easter Island in 2010, where I recall learning about his interests in astrophotography. I am sure, however, that should we meet again, we are unlikely to recognize one another. Thus, as an unbiased reader (...) , I can report that The Science of Shakespeare is a testament to the thoroughness with which Falk has carried out his research, both in libraries and in the offices of everyone, it would appear, who has so much as dabbled in the question of whether Shakespeare knew anything about the scientific developments of his day and how, if he did, this .. (shrink)