ABOUT THE PERIODIZATION O F THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
The developm ent of science and. technology all over, th e earth throughout th e en tire course of h u m an h isto ry co n stitu tes so vast a process th a t, in o rd er to be understood in its im m ense com plexity, it m ust necessarily 'be 'divided into periods. Periodization is absolutely indispensable for th e teaching of th e subject, since w ith o u t such assistance th e student w ould inevitably b e bew ildered b y th e m ass of tan g led inform ation 'Confronting 'him. N evertheless, th e subdivision of th e evolution of science and technology in to co nstituen t perio'ds should n o t be regard ed m erely as a useful pedagogical device. The teach er a n d research historian him self cannot hope to deal successfully w ith th e enorm ous am ount of m aterial available to him unless h e introduces in to it some schem e of periodization.
Such schem es m ay be classified as e ith e r ex tern al o r in tern al. By a n “ex tern a l” scheme, I m ean one im ported into th e h isto ry of science from some o th er m ore settled discipline, such as political history. By contrast, a n “in te rn a l” periodization em erges from a stu d y of th e developm ent of a p articu la r science, considered b y itself. For a n exam ple of an extern al scheme, le t m e re fe r to th e h isto ry of m y ow n country. There it is custom ary to speak of th e “colaniiall p eriod” in th e h isto ry of A m erican science, b u t su rely th is is a periodization tra n sfe rre d to th e history of science fro m political history. As a n exam ple of in te rn a l periodization, I w ould point to th e division of the history of obser vational astronom y into th ree periods: naked-eye, telescopic, and radio. It is un do ub ted ly easier to borrow read y-m ad e categories th a n to elicit them from th e b are facts. B ut if th e h isto ry of A m erican science w ere studied in itself, w ithout a n y referen c e to th e political background, w ould th e scientific w o rk of Americans, w h en th ey w ere colonial subjects of th e B ritish crown, be sufficiently d iffere n t from th e scientific w ork done in th e ea rly years o f th e new rep u b lic to w a rra n t th e in tro
22 0 E. Rosen
duction of a period in th e 'history of A m erican science to coincide w ith th e attain m en t o f political independence from B ritain? The achievem ent of political independence ind u b itab ly 'Contributed in th e course o f time to th e advancem ent of A m erican trad e and in d u stry ; th e desire to destro y obstacles to th a t advancem ent u n q u estionably h elped to foster th e m ovem ent for independence. B ut w ere th e y ears 1776 o r 1789 genuine turn ing -p o in ts in th e history of A m erican science a n d techno logy?
P olitical 'history is n o t th e only discipline from w hich a schem e of periodization is im posed on th e history of science. In ce rta in circles it is becoming increasingly fashionable, for instance, to speak of the period of baroque m athem atics. This expression m ay o riginally h av e been put forw ard in a ll innocence as a label for th e m athem atics produced w hen baroque architectu re w as in style. B ut ‘^baroque m athem atics” has come to be tak en as th e designation of a m athem atics w hich differed from th e previous m athem atics in th e sam e w ay a s th a t in w hich baroque arch itectu re differed from th e preceding arch itectu ral tren d . A nd this tran sferen ce has been m ade w ith o u t a careful in q u iry into' the charac teristics of th e m athem atical w ork being done w hile th e dom inant taste in arch itecture w as undergoing th e change to baroque.
We have seen how h arm ful iit can be w ith o u t due caution to carry over to' th e history of science schemes of periodization th a t are suitable to o th e r 'disciplines. We should b e equally on g u a rd against periodiza tions w hich are p u t forw ard for purposes extraneous to th e im p artial stud y of th e h isto ry of science. Thus, a weill-known tre a tise divided the e n tire h istory o f astronom y in to th re e periods: prim itive, Greco- Babylonian, and G erm an (some of the prom inent astronom ers in th e G erm an period 'being Galileo, Newton, and Laplace). N aturally, this periodization w as n ot received w ith m uch enthusiasm in Italy, England, an d France. Even in G erm any th is m isuse of periodization fo r purposes of nationalistic propaganda h as no t b een generally accepted.
A th ird k in d of extraneous pressu re affects th e slicing o f th e history of science in to separate perio'ds. For exam ple, ce rta in scholars seek to prolong the Middle Ages later and later into th e Renaissance, and some have even gone so f a r a s to d en y th a t th e re was, a n y Renaissance a t all. A re these stren u o u s efforts 'based solely on historical grounds, o r a re they perhaps m otivated by a desire to safeguard th e prestige of the institutions dom inant in th e Middle Ages? F o r if indeed th ere w as a Renaissance, th e n it m ust have entailed1 a reb ou nd from a depressed level, a n d in q u irin g m inds w ould th e n be tem pted to ask : “Who or w hat w as responsible for th e depressing of th e scientific level?” The answ ers to th is question m ig ht w ell im pair th e rep u ta tio n of forces Which a re still v e ry pow erful in o ur time.
ex tern al or in ternal, th e re can be no g u aran tee th a t it ■will fit equally w ell th e history of science and the h isto ry of technology. Science and technology a re evidently in te rre la te d enterprises. N evertheless th e re have been tim es in h u m an history w h en thedr effects upo n each o th e r have been l!ess decisive th a n a t present. T h ere h av e even been epochs w hen science a n d technology w ere scarcely o n speaking te rm s w ith each other, w hen th e craftsm an had no theoretical train in g a n d th e scientist h a d no in te re st in practical problem s. A schem e of periodiza tion /suitable to science d u rin g such a n epoch of estran g em en t betw een han d and brain could scarcely b e expected to fit technology, and vice versa.
If we should be on g u ard against assum ing in advance th a t a n y scheme of periodization suitable for science w ould fit technology eq u ally w ell, w e Should be equ ally on g u ard against assum ing th a t w hat holds tru e fo r one bran ch of science holds tru e for all o th e rs to th e sam e degree. W ould anyone seriously m ain tain th a t all th e b ran ch es of science sw ung u pw ard in one unified m ovem ent a t one time, a n d th e n rev ersed th e ir direction a n d dropped idown together? U nfortunately, th e tre e of scientific knowledge did not grow and droop w ith such convenient uniform ity. Some branches expanded ea rly a n d rap id ly ; others rem ained m ere twigs; still oth e rs th re w o u t num ero u s offshoots and flourished m ightily. In sober tru th , the tree of scientific know ledge looks lop-sided. No one -simple un ifo rm p a tte rn of developm ent is discernible in all its branches. No single scheme of periodization fits all th e branches of th e tree of scientific know ledge.
If th e preceding description has n o t m issed its m ark, th e p roper periodization of science an d technology rem ains un finished business. As a tem porary m easure, th e conventional schem es of periodization now in use m ay be continued, since some form of (periodization is essential. But th e conventional schemes, w hich are m ain ly ex tern al in origin, should be regarded as m erely tentative. M eanwhile, th e research -workers in each field of science a n d technology should u n d erta k e a n activ e quest for th e scheme of periodization m ost ap p ro p riate for th e ir field of special interest. If an y proposed schem e gains general approval, p re sum ably i t w ill be, n o t ex tern a l in origin, -but ra th e r in tern al, arising o u t of th e u n iq ue h isto ry o f th a t discipline. It w ill be adopted, not for the sake of convenience, b ut because it fit® th e historical facts best. It w ill no t help -to prom ote a n y one-sided propaganda, -campaign; for if it did, it w ould not w in w idespread approval. It w ould not consist m erely of -catchy p hrases o r fashionable expressions, for it w ould be based on solid research a n d it w ould be -designed to endure as th e p erm an en t fram ew ork for fu rth e r investigations.
If th e foregoing program a ttra c ts a su fficient am ount of a tten tio n on th e p a rt of research w o rk ers thro ug h o u t th e w orld, we m ay some day
2 22 E. Rosen
see, in a ll th e various fields of science a n d technology, su itab le schemes of periodization proposed, discussed, revised, and adopted. Then it w ill be tim e to consider how fa r such schem es can be generalized, to w h at ex ten t a schem e originating in one field can be applied to rela ted fields. P erhaps it m ay even b e possible to envisage, as th e end re su lt of this process, a schem e of periodization th at w ould be applicable to th e to tality of science a n d technology, ta k en together. Such a n all-em bracing scheme m ight bear little, if any, resem blance to th e custom ary periodization. B ut even if ,the overarching su p erstru ctu re should tu r n o u t in th e end to duplicate, in whole o r in p a rt, th e conventional schem es now in c u r r e n t use, a t le a st it w ould h av e 'been adopted, not to avoid h ard w ork or to fla tte r th e m ighty o r w ould-be m ighty, b u t because it w as the best schem e of periodization that- could be devised on th e basis of honest, un prejudiced research devoted exclusively to fu rth erin g th e correct u nd erstan din g of th e h isto ry of science an d technology.