At last – a book wholly devoted to the hugely influential Victorian scientist Sir George Gabriel Stokes. The year 2019 is the bicentenary of Stokes's birth, so this is the right year for it. But the questions considered here are: is this the right book for historians of science celebrating Stokes's bicentenary? To whom is it addressed?

Stephen Hawking's anecdotal advice in A Brief History of Time on the impact of mathematical equations on book sales has not been heeded by the editors of this volume, which contains over a hundred complex examples. This is, therefore, not a book for the general reader; perhaps mathematical physicists have the most to gain from detailed study of its contents on optics, fluid flows, bridge engineering and further mathematics. Yet there is also potential interest here for the historian of science – Stuart Mathieson's chapter on Stokes's faith provides engagingly written detail on the religious context of the period, linking it to science and scientists generally and then to Stokes in particular. Stokes's heterodox views on the doctrine of eternal damnation (he, like Darwin, was against it) might in previous ages have been regarded as heretical, but his efforts to demonstrate harmony between science and religion are well drawn out by Mathieson, who relies on the extensive primary sources of Stokes's own words. June Barrow-Green's chapter on Stokes's mathematical education is equally interesting, if rather brief on detail, focusing on the institutions of Bristol College and the Cambridge Mathematical Tripos. Michael Sandford – a descendant of Stokes – contributes interesting new detail on character and background drawn from family resources. Olivier Darrigol's two chapters on Stokes's work in optics provide fair – if somewhat technical – reviews of Stokes's arguments explaining optical phenomena under the (then generally accepted) assumption of an all-pervading, providential luminiferous ether, a world view to which Stokes adhered firmly for the rest of his life. Darrigol also provides clear and useful expositions of Stokes's experiments on fluorescence and solar spectroscopy. All of this is effective fuel for the historian of science.

Some important historical detail could be developed further. Darrigol's direct reference (p. 64) to Stokes's letter of 12 February 1858 to William Thomson (later Lord Kelvin) might have opened the door to a discussion of its most historically important content – Stokes giving notice that he is setting aside all original research in favour of his administrative work at the Royal Society. Stokes's decision was arguably, on balance, much to the general benefit of science in the longer term, but this argument is not progressed very far by Sloan Evans Despeaux in her chapter on ‘Stokes and the Royal Society’. This seems a highly significant omission. Stokes's relationship with the Royal Society lasted fifty-two years from election as a fellow in 1851, including thirty-one years as joint secretary (1854–1885) and five years as president (1885–1890). His impact on science and scientists as authoritative collaborator, as editor of the society's two main scientific publications (Transactions and Proceedings), as de facto gatekeeper of British science and self-appointed guardian of the Royal Society's reputation for scientific excellence, all during a remarkably fecund period of scientific development, are the key understandings that must be discussed at some length in a chapter with this title. This mark is missed by some distance. The few pages devoted to the subject barely mention the immense impact of Stokes on a stellar cast of Victorian scientists who deferred (with rare exceptions) to his authority. To maintain such a politically powerful position, made perilous by all the clear opportunities for accusations of bias or incompetence, without apparent scandal or significant challenge from a community that can at best be regarded as highly disputatious, for so many years, requires an administrator of rare personal qualities. This brief chapter makes limited attempt to enlighten the reader with relevant evidence of the importance of Stokes's service to the Royal Society, and must be regarded as a superficial effort.

The historian may not get that far, for more acute difficulties are to be found in Chapter 1. A somewhat simplistic discussion (p. 17) of Stokes's disagreement with the theories of Charles Darwin includes this nonsense: ‘Darwin and Stokes … worked well together for several years as joint Secretaries of the Royal Society.’ Darwin was never a secretary of the Royal Society, jointly with Stokes or anybody else. The author is probably confusing Darwin with T.H. Huxley, which is error enough, but worse is to follow as the next sentence reads, ‘Darwin was present at a High Table for Stokes's Jubilee Dinner in 1899’ (p. 17). The ‘Darwin’ under discussion died in 1882. In fact, it was his son George (by 1899 an eminent scientist in his own right) who was present at Stokes's celebrations. Further down the same page, Isaac Newton is regarded as a precedent for Stokes's holding the office of MP and president of the Royal Society simultaneously. But Newton did not do so – he ceased to be an MP in 1702 and took up presidency of the Royal Society in the following year. It is difficult to understand how such a raft of clearly incorrect assertions might creep through various copy-editing and review processes.

Is this the right book for historians of science to celebrate Stokes's bicentenary? I think not – its major flaw is the imbalance between Stokes's impact on mathematical physics (which is covered in some detail) and his seminal influence on science and scientists for a much longer period, which is barely mentioned.

To whom is this book addressed? Not the general reader, certainly. Some parts of the history are well done and worth reading for their content and style; some are less so. Mathematical physicists are most likely to find intellectual satisfaction in these pages, but the story of Stokes – one of the most important Victorian scientists of them all – deserves wider appreciation. We can hope that another attempt is made before too long.