Edward Gibbon's allegation at the beginning of his Essay on the Study of
Literature (1764) that the history of empires is that of the miseries of
humankind whereas the history of the sciences is that of their splendour
and happiness has for a long time been accepted by professional
scientists and by historians of science alike. For its practitioner, the
history of a discipline displayed above all the always difficult but
fmally rewarding approach to a truth which was incorporated in the
discipline in its actual fonn. Looking back, it was only too easy to
distinguish those who erred and heretics in the field from the few
forerunners of true science. On the one hand, the traditional history of
science was told as a story of hero and hero worship, on the other hand
it was, paradoxically enough, the constant attempt to remind the
scientist whom he should better forget. It is not surprising at all
therefore that the traditional history of science was a field of only
minor interest for the practitioner of a distinct scientific diSCipline
or specialty and at the same time a hardly challenging task for the
professional historian. Nietzsche had already described the historian of
science as someone who arrives late after harvest-time: it is somebody
who is only a tolerated guest at the thanksgiving dinner of the
scientific community .