48 , Introduction 



creations and with their own ideas rather than earlier ideas. Every 

 theologian is a scholar ipso facto, while very few artists are scholarly 

 minded. 



This is the second time that I mention international congresses, be- 

 cause these played a great part in the organization of science and espe- 

 cially in the definition of new disciplines and the formulation of their 

 methods. Such congresses are very useful but not sufficient. The new 

 discipline will scarcely flourish, unless the scholars devoting themselves 

 to it are given opportunities to do their work, to earn a living, and to 

 train apprentices. That condition was fulfilled, both for the history of 

 art and the history of religion. Professors were appointed to teach the 

 history of religion in the four Dutch universities in 1877 and very soon 

 afterwards in Switzerland, Belgium and France. A special chair was 

 established at the College de France in 1879. Before the end of the last 

 century, there were a good number of professors of the history of religion 

 or of the science of comparative religion, etc., in the leading universities 

 of the world. The situation was even more favorable to the history of 

 art, for, in addition to professorships in the leading universities, the mu- 

 seums needing curators and experts offered tempting positions to hun- 

 dreds of scholars. 



The third discipline, the history of science, was not so fortunate. It 

 is true, international congresses were organized as early as 1900, but they 

 enjoyed neither the importance nor the popularity of the congresses of 

 the history of art and the history of religion, and their desiderata were 

 not implemented by the creation of professorships.^*^ What is even 

 more tragic, when a professorship was finally created at the College de 

 France in 1892, the history of science was so badly understood that the 

 professorship was awarded to incompetent persons and did more harm 

 than good.^^ Even today, more than half a century later, the number 

 of professorships in the history of science is still exceedingly small. This 

 suggests that my queries are pertinent. "Is it worthwhile and possible 

 to teach the history of science?" If the general answer of administrators 

 and educators had been yes, the number of professorships would be 

 much greater than it is. How shall we account for the fact that there 

 is, at least, one professor of the history of art and one professor of the 

 history of religion in almost every university and a professor of the his- 

 tory of science in almost none. 



To begin with, let us clear up a misunderstanding, the confusion 

 between the history of science and the history of particular sciences. 

 That confusion is ancient. If we leave out of account various histories 

 written in the 18th century which are too superficial and discursive and 



^ For congresses on the history of science, see Guide below, Chapter 24. 

 ^ That story is told with some detail in my article Paui,, Jules and Marie Tan- 

 nery (Isis 38, 33-51,1947). 



