HISTORY OF SCIENCE 39 



body. Notwithstanding this, the author and his book had to bear 

 the attacks of a great many fanatics. 



One of the saddest results of these misunderstandings is that 

 some very religious and sincere souls have been misled and have 

 treated science as an enemy. Another important result is that the 

 evolution of science is very intimately interwoven with that of re- 

 ligions and their heresies. 



4. Science and Art. It may be useful to tender some remarks 

 upon the different characteristics of scientific and artistic work 

 before pointing out what is interesting from our point of view in 

 the history of art. In the history of art as it is generally taught, 

 very little is said about technicalities. Are there many people who 

 know, or care to know, what kind of colors Botticelli used, or 

 what were the tools of Phidias? We love a work of art for itself. 

 It is essentially the ultimate result that interests us, not the meth- 

 ods used to obtain it. In the domain of learning, on the contrary, 

 the result is generally less interesting than the methods em- 

 ployed to reach it. 



The history of science is not merely a history of the conquests 

 of the human mind, but it is much more a study of the instru- 

 ments — material and intellectual instruments — created by our in- 

 telligence; it is also a history of human experience. This long 

 experience of the past has much more significance for the scien- 

 tist than for the artist. The artist admires the work of his fore- 

 runners, but the scientist does more than admire, he makes actual 

 use of it. The artist may find an inspiration in it, but the scientist 

 tries to incorporate it entirely in his own work. It is very difficult 

 to conceive progress in art. Does Rodin carve better than Ver- 

 rocchio or Polycletus? The pictures by Carriere, by Watts, or by 

 Segantini : are they finer than those by Fra Angelico, by Van Eyck 

 or by Moro? Have these questions even any sense? 



In the domain of science the matter is quite different. Un- 

 doubtedly it would be foolish to discuss whether Archimedes was 

 more or less intelligent than Newton or Gauss; but we can in all 



