O R G A N O N 3(1966) ENSEIGNEMENT DE L ’HISTOIRE
DES SCIENCES
Paweł C zartoryski (Poland)
SOME REMARKS ON NATIONAL HISTORY OF SCIENCE
The teaching of national h istory of science, beside lectures on th e general h isto ry of science seems to become a necessity. On th e one hand, students (as w ell as th e general reader) should have a system atic idea of scientific developm ent of th e ir own country, on th e other, science is increasingly considered as an im po rtan t factor of historical development, attractin g th e attention of political, social and economic historians. But, w hile th e w ays and p a tte rn s of lecturing and w ritin g on general h istory of science are established, a t least to a certain de gree, the “m odel” of a national h isto ry of science practically does not exist. Thus, it m ay be in teresting to present some general ideas on th is subject, draw n from th e experiences connected w ith th e w ork on an, outline of the history of science in P o la n d .1
The following problem s w ill be discussed below: (I) value judge m ents and criteria of choice; (II) th e diffusion of science; (III) auto nom y and creative powers; (IV) continuity versus discontinuity and the teaching of national h isto ry of science.
I
The question of value judgem ents on w hich the choice of m aterial is based — appears in a differen t light, w hen applied to natio n al cir cumstances.
In general histo ry of science, two criteria seem m ost im portant: achievem ent (discovery) and continuity versus discontinuity. P u ttin g things in a v ery sim ple w ay — successive steps in scientific
develop-1 This outline is being prepared collectiv ely at th e In stitu te of th e H istory of Science and Technique of the Polish A cadem y o f Sciences. The author is working on th e first part of the book concerned w ith th e M iddle A ges; h e is a historian of th e social sciences. The present paper is on ly aimed at presenting an outline o f som e chosen general problem s, w hich m ay be controversial. A ll exam p les w ill be taken from th e history of P olish science.
1 7 4 P a w e ł C za rto ry sk i
m ent form the chronological background of th e discourse, w hile con tin u ity w ithin separate schools of tho u g h t is opposed to discontinuity or even contradictions between them. Thus, th e subject of general history of science: development of scientific thought, is set w ithin the fram ew ork of the tim e-factor. Now, w ith in a national history of scien ce, two m ore factors h ave to be introduced, nam ely: th e geographical and th e ethnic one. N ational history takes into account a “lim ited” sector of th e “overall” reality rep resented by general h isto ry of science.
Two notions should be defined here, nam ely: w h at is understood by “general h isto ry ” and by “geographic and ethnic lim itations”. The first definition is ra th e r simple: trad itio n ally general h isto ry concerns our w estern cultu re in th e broad sense of th e word, and it is only recen tly th a t other cultures of our globe, such as China, a re being relu c tan tly introduced into th e picture (thus, stric tly speaking, general history is also in a sense only a p artia l one). The second definition is much m ore complicated, depending on conditions of historical developm ent of various national cultures. H ere it is enough to say, th a t geographical boundaries changed in th e past according to political events, and th e ethnic criterion can not alw ays be applied w ith success, since its m ea ning was also subject to change in various historical periods. Coper nicus and M arie C urie Skłodowska m ay be taken as typical examples. F u rtherm ore — living in a w orld of fading nationalism s, we are p er haps too often inclined to apply to th e past our presen t criteria (or b ette r criteria from v ery recent days).
Let us now come back to th e problem s of value and choice. As said before, the essential value judgem ent in general history of science concerns th e im portance, originality, preem inence or level of a certain author, school or system of thought. Thus, sim plifying m atters, “first and second ra te ” authors or schools appear in textbooks of h isto ry of science, w hile the, let us say “th ird and fou rth ra te ” ones are left aside. A ll this, of course, is subject to constant re-evaluation, since research furnishes new basic facts and methodology changes and im proves. Here, however, it is essential to state, th a t this p articu lar set of criteria can not be applied (even m utatis m utandis) to national history, since th e la tte r is definitely m uch m ore th a n a simple geo graphical or ethnical paragrap h of general history.
W hat are then th e national criteria, or rath er, w hat should they be? Science as a system of theorem s and hypotheses can not be ex
definitione national. I t m ay be national only accidentally, obiter dictu,
if e.g. a certain set of theorem s is identified w ith the n ationality of th e ir authors. (Only in such a sense th e term “Polish school of logic” m ay be used). On the other hand, m ost of the institutional aspects of science are national, in other words the social fram ew ork in w hich
N ational H istory b j Science 1 7 5
science develops is v ery often national. The subject m atter of hum an sciences m ay also be national, as it is the case for historiography or for h istory of litte ratu re. The sam e is tru e, perhaps to a lesser extent, for social sciences, in w hich a national subject m a tter m ay often have in tern ation al m eaning, as in the case of M achiavelli’s II principe, or Thomas and Znaniecki’s: The Polish Peasant in Europe and Am erica. Thus to th e ex ten t in w hich institutional, factual and theoretical ele m ents merge, science has national and in tern atio n al aspects, not spea king of th e obvious geographical and ethnical criteria.
This leads to th e crucial point concerning national history of science, nam ely th a t it is concerned w ith th e in terrelatio n betw een scientific theories, scientific activities and scientific developm ent as w ell as w ith cultural, social, economic and political h isto ry of th e country. This in terrelation may, or m ay not be stressed; it m ay con cern various (or even deliberately chosen) aspects of science and of social life; it m ay contain m ore or less of th e p urely theoretical ele m ent, but in any case — it w ill always rem ain the featu re of national, as opposed to th e general h isto ry of science.
Assuming the form er, th e system of values w ill also be different. The basic, cognitive values w ill of course rem ain to th e ex ten t in w hich they m ay be applied to the country in question. But other values as w ell w ill have a v ery strong, if not predom inant, im pact on research. L et us s ta rt w ith some exam ples taken from Polish history: Fof the M iddle Ages (13th — 14th c.) such w orld know n figures as Vitello, M artinus Polonus or M athaeus de Cracovia seem to be less im portant for th e developm ent of Polish culture, th an th e m u ltitude of obscure Polish scholars at the Italian universities, at M ontpellier, P aris or Oxford, who w ere form ing the developing body of the first intellectual class of th e country. In th e sam e w ay it could be said, th a t thousands of m anuscripts a t the lib raries of Cracow and W roclaw give m ore hope to get a b ette r understanding of the intellectual life of th e country in the 15th c. th an the w ritings of P aulus V ladim iri on
De bellis iustis, or even the Polish H istory by J a n Dlugosz. In the
sam e sense, from the Polish point of view, research on th e Copernican revolution should not only concentrate on the g reat astronom er’s work, b u t also on his predecessors and followers w ith in the country. Some tim es the national point of view tu rn s out to be par excellence an international one, as in the case of the Polish F riars, who seem to be predecessors (after their expulsion in 1660) of th e Enlightenm ent period. Even some definitely “negative” aspects deserve much m ore consideration (as in th e case of Jesu it schools in Poland in the 17th c.) since only th ey can explain some basic cu ltu ral phenom ena.
Summarizing, it seems th a t value judgem ents in national history of science should be based on th e following criteria:
P a w eł C za rto rysk i
1. Sociology of science — th e form ing of intellectual social groups and centers, th e ir evolution and changes.
2. H istory of scientific institutions, th e ir developm ent, raise and decline, radiation etc.
3. M utual influence betw een domestic and foreign centers.
4. The interrelations betw een the factors (1—3) and the cultural social, economic and political developm ent of the country.
The im portance of “p u re” scientific values can not of course be disregarded or dim inished. Those values, however, should be blended w ith the criteria presented above. And it is only this blend th a t can lead to adequate proportions and balanced judgem ents in w riting a national h isto ry of science. Such a balance w ill perhaps be still b et te r understood in the light of th e following considerations on scientific diffusion.
II
The problem of diffusion of scientific ideas seems to be of basic im portance for th e understanding of stru ctu res in national history of science. “D iffusion” should be understood as th e spreading of scientific ideas in tim e and space. Thus it m ay be vizualized as a “three-dim en sional” approach to th e history of science: th e tim eless and spaceless “contents” of science being determ ined by tw o fu rth er dimensions — those of tim e and space.
Time m ay be treated as expressing th e “lag” betw een the origins of certain ideas or schools, and th eir appearance in a given country. It determ ines also th eir duration, th eir assiduity and the period of th e ir influence. On th e other hand, space m ay be trea ted as a kind of scientific “geography”; th e analogy betw een such an approach and m odern regional econom ics2 is most striking here. One would almost be inclined to use the economic term s of “m acro” and “m icro” distri bution of science, th e form er pertaining to th e great international tren d s in science, the la tte r to th e scientific stru ctu re on the national (or regional) scale. To use only one exam ple: the transition from the M iddle Ages to th e Renaissance can not be properly explained w ithout introducing the factors of tim e and space. The theses of Jacob B urck- h a r d t 3 about the contradictions betw een those periods, traditionally accepted in general history of science, are practically unapplicable to national history, in w hich em pirical m aterial dem onstrates a trem en dous diversification of th e problem . The hum anistic and scholastic attitu d es (however th e y would be defined) “coexist” together for cen
2 See e.g. W. I s a r d (and others): Methods of Regional Analysis. The Techno logy Press of the M. I. T. and J. W iley & Sons, 1960.
N ational H istory of Science 1 7 7
turies; for instance in the 15th c. hum anistic com m entators of A ristotle such as Donato A cciaiuoli4, draw from the tradition of m edieval authors (W alter Burleigh, Thomas A quinas etc.), though they express them selves in beautiful Latin. On the other hand, some com mentaries, which are scholastic in form (as the ones of th e Cracow m asters of the early 15th c.) contain basic ideas attrib u ted generally to th e Renaisr- sance thought.
It is only detailed, historical investigation th a t can disentangle the problem, and a profound stu d y of tex ts is the only m eans of showing w ays of their diffusion in tim e ^ n d space. Only such a detailed “m ap ” explains the processes and regularities taking place w ithin a given country. If we do not have such a “m ap” for the country in question, we are condemned to use a priori criteria draw n from general h isto ry of science, which usually lead to false conclusions. Thus th e following, basic “kinds” of diffusion should be distinguished:
1. International diffusion, i.e. basic tren d s of thought coming from one country (or group of countries) to another.
2. Internal stru ctu re w ithin the country, showing the “geography of science” at a given tim e-period.
3. Social “rad iatio n ” of science.
All th ree aspects are in m any senses interrelated . F irst of all, in te r national diffusion, as said before, should not be treated schem atically — since it is only the sources th a t m ay give an adequate key to th e w ays in which it influenced science in a given country.
In tern a l stru ctu re of diffusion w ithin the country expresses th e local geography of science. It is perhaps less im po rtant from the general point of view, b ut very m eaningful for scientific stratification, p resen ting the links of science w ith its social background, and its im pact on th e life of the country. This last featu re is strictly connected w ith th e “rad iatio n” of science, th a t is to say, w ith the influence of scientific activities, and especially of the activities of those graduates, who did not choose a scientific career, engaging in teaching, public service, etc. Their work was an additional link betw een science and social life, dem onstrating also, at the basic level of the com munity, th e in te r actions of scence and religion, philosophy, literatu re and art.
ill
If diffusion, however, is treated in the traditional m eaning of sim ple? influence, it m ay well lead to a kind of m echanical approach to scientific developm ent, assum ing tacitly, th a t except for th e great m asters, no autonomous, creative work existed. In this light, scientific
4 Donati Acciaiuoli In A risto telis libros octo Politicorum Commentarii. V ene- tiis 1566.
1 7 8 P a w e ł C za rto rysk i
schools are presented as groups of m ore or less stric t followers of th eir founders, th e rows of successors appear p arallel to each other, th eir controversies and fights are based on mechanical contraposition of th e ir logical theses, the “n ew ” fights w ith th e “old” and th e whole picture becomes a pitiful sim plification of actual life.
This method is most disastrous for national history of science, especially in sm aller countries. Sim plifying m atters, th e re is little or nothing happening in such a country — since most of the schools and tren d s of thought are of foreign origin, deserving sim ply to be treated as ready im ported blueprints.
The original sin of such a philosophy of science consists in an erroneous idea of intellectual activity; strictly speaking — in a m echa nical trea tm en t of scientific thought. The historian of science should have deep belief in the creative powers of th e hum an mind, in its freedom of choice and autonomy. Each author or school in the develop m ent of science, even the least im portant one, should be given the credit of independent thought. This is the only w ay of saving hum an values in the history of science.
To be w ell understood, let us determ ine closer the scope of such independence. It is obvious, th a t everyone is not a genius, and th at great discoveries and new basic ideas are the lot of a chosen few. Their followers however, w ere also intelligent, thinking and living creatures, directed in their intellectual w ork by th eir own motivations, th ey had th e freedom of choice w ithin existing conditions, and above all they had definite aims and definite ideas concerning the sense of th eir intellectual work. If h istory of science is approached in this way, every intellectual activity in the past becomes interesting and im portant. This seems to be the only possible approach to national history of science, enabling to preserve the necessary scale of values, as discus sed in th e first paragraph.
B ut let us get down to the ground. If such a philosophy of the hum an mind, together w ith the value system and the criteria of choice presented in the first paragraph are applied to th e various layers of “diffusion” discussed previously, we seem to be obtaining th e correct picture of national history of science. W hen the th ree layers of dif fusion: the international, the in tern al and th e radiation one, are treated as autonomic intellectual activity of free hum an beings, then every detail appears in new, b rig h ter light. We begin to understand the intellectual history of our country, the m otivations and not only the contents of intellectual activities, th e purposefulness of this or th at intellectual choice, the cultural, social or economic sense of radiation, in a word, th e historic m eaning of science.
P erhaps the best exam ple from the Polish history would concern the Enlightenm ent period. For the country in question it was sim ul
N ation al H istory of Science 179
taneously a period of political disintegration (owing to the partitions) and cu ltu ral as w ell as intellectual renew al. Thus, th e Polish scientific activities of th e period can not be judged exclusively by in tellectu al standards, b u t th ey should be strictly connected w ith m uch broader m otivation. Such m en as Stanisław K onarski, king Stanisław Leszczyń ski, Hugo K ołłątaj or Stanisław Staszic w ere all engaged in th e fight for th e renew al of th e ir country, trea tin g science as one of the basic tools leading to this aim. Thus, th ey should not exclusively be judged b y intellectual standars, since it is only th e un derstan d in g of v e ry complex political, social and cultu ral m otivations th a t explains th e autonom y of th e ir choice and the real aim s of th e ir work.
IV
The last question concerns continuity versus discontinuity of natio nal h istory of science. Assuming, th a t science, in its great lines of developm ent is essentially th e resu lt of in tern atio nal cooperation, national developm ent of science w ill alw ays in th is sense be m ore or less frag m en tary and disrupted. This discontinuity m ay seem m uch m ore acute, if the system of values criticized above in paragrap h one is applied, th a t is, if only the logical stru c tu re of science is taken into consideration. If however, the m echanism of diffusion and the assum ptions of autonom y (paragraphs II and III) form th e basic stru c tu re of research, th en th e re is a much g reater chance of seeing a con- tinous line of developm ent, despite its logical disruptions. Of course, th e picture w ill be different for big and sm all countries, for those w hich during long historical periods w ere a t th e head of scientific achievem ent, and those w hich could not alw ays keep up th e pace. F or th e latter, even in such a light, th ere is a v ery definite, constant problem of continuity versus discontinuity, to th e ex ten t in w hich foreign influences in terru p ted trad itio n being b uilt up locally. It seems, th a t those traditions w ere basically related to th e in stitu tio n al fram ew ork, w hile the logical stru ctu re of science w as subject to m uch faster modifications. I t is obvious, however, th a t detailed judgem ent m u st be based on em pirical m aterial.
There is, however, a second aspect to the problem , nam ely, w h at was th e actual consciousness of national scientific trad itio n s in separate historical periods. Judging from our present state of know ledge of Polish history, such a trad itio n was d isrupted m any times, and th e appearance of new, in tern ation al tren d s of thought often v irtu a lly erazed th e m em ory of passed Polish achievem ents. To a certain ex ten t, how ever, this m ay be a som ew hat superficial point of view, since rece n t research brings up m ore and m ore traces of such traditions. But, such disruption was not only a featu re of the past. Owing to our p resen t
1 8 0 P a w e l C za rto rysk i
educational system, the knowledge of those traditions seems also to be deficient nowadays. T hat is why, the teaching of national, versus ge neral h isto ry of science should also be taken into account.
To w h at an extent, therefore, national histo ry of science should be taught, and w hat should be its relation to th e teaching of general histo ry of science? To a certain degree analogy can be draw n from the teaching of political history and th a t of th e history of literatu re and philosophy. W hile political history of one’s own country as well as th e history of national lite ra tu re comes first in th e teaching order, before general political and lite ra ry history, the inverse seems to be tru e for the history of philosophy, since it is only th e “g eneral” history of philosophy th a t can give th e stu den t an understanding of th e de velopm ent of the essential problem s of the hum an mind. The same seems to be tru e for general h isto ry of science. On the other hand, the im portance of national history of science for general education and for the education of fu tu re historians of science seems to be evident, since scientific developm ent is an essential factor of national culture, and it is only the specific features of national history of science th a t can ex plain the particu lar w ays in w hich science developed in a given co untry.
T hat is w hy national h isto ry of science should be treated as a separate subject for the general student, otherw ise it w ill always be in a sense diluted in various chapters of general history, or worse still, in th e history of literatu re. The same, to a still greater ex ten t concerns the education of historians of science. Since m any of them work on problem s concerning th eir own country, th eir “stan d ard ” education should also com prise this subject, otherw ise th ey risk to have im p o rtan t gaps in this field, and m ore im p o rtan t still, th eir approach to national history m ay be seriously biased b y th e general one in the m any senses determ ined above. Especially, certain assum ptions taken
a priori from the v ery beginning from general h isto ry of science may
lead them to basic errors in in terpretation. T hat is why, courses of national history of science should be seriously considered w ithin the program s of respective university departm ents, and a good textbook of this subject seems to be a really useful and im portant tool for fu tu re research.
