360 Lightman
(on which Huxley sat). He was particularly harsh on professional astrono-
mers in government observatories, where mechanical and routine work
precluded “almost entirely the pursuit of original researches.”^64 Moreover,
Proctor did not admire “the way in which ‘soi- disants’ professional astron-
omers treat the wonders of the heavens and the grand problems presented
by the movements of the celestial orbs. Too often they discuss these as a
mere land surveyor might discuss the teachings of the earth’s crust.” Proc-
tor’s disgust with the emphasis on “methods and instruments of observa-
tion,” rather than the lessons to be learned from careful observations, rep-
resented a protest against the obsession with precision measurement that
was so important to professionalizing scientists.^65 His use of the phrase
“soi- disants,” or, “so- called,” professionals, registers his protest against the
notion of the professional scientist, at least when applied to those who
worked in government observatories. In fact, Proctor founded his jour-
nal Knowledge in order to challenge Nature for control of the popular sci-
ence periodical market. Edited by the astronomer Norman Lockyer, one
of Proctor’s bitterest enemies, Nature was founded in 1869 to gain the sup-
port of the general public for the agenda of professional science. Lockyer
often called on Huxley and his friends to boost the success of his project.
The format of Knowledge refl ected Proctor’s aversion for the professional-
izing, hierarchical vision of science contained in the pages of Nature. His
format, which in the early years featured a large correspondence section,
drew on an older republican image of scientifi c community.^66
In the opening pages of his Flowers of the Sky (1879), Proctor quoted
John Herschel on how the nature of light provided evidence for the argu-
ment for a unity of design and action in the universe.^67 In many ways,
Proctor was closer in spirit to the gentlemen of science than to the sci-
entifi c naturalists. Like Whewell, he pointed to the need for unity in sci-
ence. Although he realized that “every real worker in science must be a
specialist,” he also believed that they should have “a correct view of other
sciences” that could be found in popular science works. “Every true popu-
lariser of science knows,” Proctor declared, “that among his readers, if not
forming the greater number of his readers, there will be men of science,
working in other branches.”^68 Like Whewell, he refused to make rigid dis-
tinctions between popular and professional science. He argued that writ-
ing popular science works was an integral part of the role of the scientist,
that it was by no means a secondary activity. Proctor even suggested that
popularizing new scientifi c theories could be a boon to the scientist, as
the process of working on how to present them clearly constituted a test
of their cogency.^69 Proctor offered a very different defi nition of the “sci-
entist” at a time when Huxley and his allies were trying to establish their