June 7, 1907] 



SCIENCE 



893 



tween these various attempts; and a syn- 

 thetical representation that should seek to 

 reconcile the conflicting standpoints is still 

 a vain hope. The reason is the isolation 

 of the single sciences, each of which, being 

 restricted to its peculiar resources and 

 methods, is intent on solving a problem in 

 which a goodly number of them are in- 

 volved. Naturally, only one solution to a 

 problem is possible, whether it be attacked 

 through physical or historical research; 

 and if the results obtained by either are 

 mutually contradictory, this is equivalent 

 to saying that the particular science alone 

 is unable to solve it, and that the solution 

 should be undertaken by a concentration of 

 energy of all the sciences concerned in the 

 specific case. To cite a practical example, 

 take the origin and propagation of our 

 cereals, or the long history of the domestica- 

 tion of the ox or the horse— problems 

 around which, finally, the most ancient 

 history of Asia and Europe centers. 

 There is no science ■which, by the mere 

 exercise of its own limited faculties, could 

 reach a decisive solution of them ; but I am 

 fully confident of ultimate success through 

 a cooperative combination of the various 

 sciences involved, which, in this case, are 

 geology, botany, zoology, archeology, his- 

 tory and anthropology. The individual 

 can not master all these sciences; and, 

 instead of dividing our strength by working 

 singly from isolated positions, we should 

 advocate the uniting of all available forces 

 for the best good of the same cause. The 

 identical observation holds for all historical 

 studies of sciences. The students of Ori- 

 ental fields, for example, whether their 

 work be in the Egyptian, Arabic, Indian 

 or Chinese departments, are almost daily 

 confronted with the wonderfully rich scien- 

 tific lore of these peoples referring to sub- 

 jects in which they themselves are not com- 

 petent; but it is on the shoulders of these 



very students that the accumulation of a 

 large portion of the material rests, on which 

 the historian of science can build. One of 

 the most remarkable instances of this sort 

 of cooperation which I have in mind, and 

 which might be extended over many other 

 lines, was the association of the Orientalist 

 Karabacek in Vienna with the naturalist 

 Johann Wiesner, for the investigation of 

 ancient Arabic, Chinese and Turkestan rag- 

 papers, the microscopical and chemical 

 analysis of which confirmed step by step, 

 in minutest details, every result of the his- 

 tory of the invention of rag-paper con- 

 tributed from Chinese and Arabic sources. 

 The result of their joint labors, carried 

 through many years, I consider one of 

 the greatest triumphs of modem science. 

 But there are many more culture problems 

 of equal importance whose solution must 

 be achieved in a similar manner. Let me 

 refer you only to the history of the invav 

 tion of gunpowder and of the magnetic 

 compass, both of which are still very ob- 

 scure in fundamental points, and the work- 

 ing-up of which requires a whole force of 

 well-trained specialists — Arabists, San- 

 skritists, Sinologues, and men well versed 

 in chemistry, technology, physics and their 

 history. 



A study of some of the principal ques- 

 tions in this field is further of profound 

 significance in an interpretation of the 

 methods and results of anthropology. 

 Allow me to exemplify this briefly from 

 the instance of mathematical history. The 

 relation of the concepts of mathematics to 

 the human mind and to the development 

 of culture is still a matter of controversy, 

 and one of burning actuality, just at the 

 present time. A solution on the basis of 

 an historical method is one of the aspects 

 of this problem. The historical position of 

 mathematics, however, is as yet very far 

 from being defined, and no criterions are 



