To Teach the History of Science? 53 



history of painting or the history of music. Each of these histories is 

 much more complete and much more reveahng, not only of the whole 

 artistic but also of the whole social life, than the history of any particular 

 science could possibly be. Moreover, art is so deeply connected with 

 sentiments and feelings that it is much more justified to study its na- 

 tional development than to study the national development of any 

 science. A history of Russian or Italian science would be somewhat 

 artificial; while the histories of Russian music or Italian painting are 

 relatively self-contained. 



The history of special sciences is very useful for many purposes, tech- 

 nical and philosophical, but totally insujSicient, if our purpose is to ex- 

 plain the development of mankind or the organization of knowledge. 



The main objection that one can make to the history of science is 

 that it is far too big a subject. Think of it! The history of all knowl- 

 edge everywhere and throughout the ages. Is it possible to encompass 

 such a field?, ask the sceptics. Their doubts are fully justified. It is 

 not yet possible, or it is possible only in a first approximation, but this 

 does not mean that it is worthless to try. Moreover, many scientists 

 resent the preposterous ambition of the historians — to know the whole 

 of science plus the whole of history. How could anybody do it? His- 

 torians may seem to be soaring high up in the clouds "au dessus de la 

 melee." What do they really know?, would the scientist ask. What 

 do they know down to brass tacks? What could they do with their 

 knowledge? Could they use this instrument and make correct measure- 

 ments with it? Could they solve this particular problem? The his- 

 torian might answer that he does not try to know things "down to brass 

 tacks" — but down to the roots which is very different; he does not try 

 to know for the sake of solving individual problems but rather for the 

 sake of understanding the general situation; he does not try to apply his 

 knowledge to practical and immediate purposes, but he tries to under- 

 stand the relationship of ideas as deeply as possible. Of course, his way 

 of doing this may be offensive; his own knowledge (however he may 

 define it) may be inadequate and superficial; he may be conceited and 

 too easily satisfied with insuflBcient surveys. We are not dealing here, 

 however, with the shortcomings of historians of science which are as 

 varied and numerous as the shortcomings of other men. Our concern is 

 different: is it possible to have a general knowledge of science and his- 

 tory, that is, of nature and of man? Is it possible to unravel the spiritual 

 vicissitudes of the men of every age and climate who faced nature, tried 

 to solve its riddles, to understand its mysteries and take advantage of 

 them, to grasp its wholeness, to guess its purpose, and to adapt them- 

 selves to it? I believe it is possible and my faith is strengthened by the 

 successful efforts of many great scholars. 



General knowledge, it should be noted, is not the same as universal 

 knowledge. The latter is beyond human reach, the former not. When 

 I read a scientific or learned journal, I am always impressed by the large 



