Thinking about ‘Presentism’ from a Historian's Perspective: Herbert Butterfield and Hélène Metzger

See, for example Stocking G. W. , “On the limits of ‘presentism’ and ‘historicism’ in the historiography of the behavioral sciences” (first published in 1965), in Stocking G. W. , Race, culture and evolution: Essays in the history of anthropology (New York, 1968), 1–12; Brush S. G. , “Should the history of science be rated X? The way scientists behave (according to historians) might not be a good model for students”, Science, clxxxiii (1974), 1974–72; Hull D. L. , “In defense of presentism”, History and theory, xviii (1979), 1979–15; Graham L. , “Why can't history dance contemporary ballet? Or whig history in the evils of contemporary dance”, Science, technology and human values, vi (1981), 1981–6; Hall A. R. , “On whiggism”, History of science, xxi (1983), 1983–59; Roger J. , “Pour une histoire historienne des sciences” (first published in 1984, in J. Roger, Pour une histoire des sciences à part entière (Paris, 1995), 43–73); Russell C. , “Whigs and professionals”, Nature, cccviii (1984), 1984–8; Harrison E. , “Whigs, prigs and the historians of science”, Nature, cccxxix (1987), 1987–14; Wilson A. Ashplant T. G. , “Whig history and present-centred history”, The historical journal, xxxi (1988), 1988–16; Ashplant T. G. Wilson A. , “Present-centred history and the problem of historical knowledge”, The historical journal, xxxi (1988), 1988–74; Blanckaert C. , “‘Story’ et ‘history’ de l'ethnologie”, Revue de synthèse, 4th ser., iii—iv (1988), 451–67; Mayr E. , “When is historiography whiggish?”, Journal of the history of ideas, li (1990), 1990–9; Hardcastle G. L. , “Presentism and the indeterminacy of translation”, Studies in history and philosophy of science, xxii (1991), 1991–45; Pickstone J. V. , “Past and present knowledges in the practices of the history of science”, History of science, xxxiii (1995), 1995–24; Brush S. G. , “Scientists as historians”, Osiris, n.s., x (1995), 1995–31; Jardine N. , “Uses and abuses of anachronism in the history of the sciences”, History of science, xxxviii (2000), 2000–70; Jardine N. , “Whigs and stories: Herbert Butterfield and the historiography of science”, History of science, xli (2003), 2003–40; Tosh N. , “Anachronism and retrospective explanation: In defence of a present-centred history of science”, Studies in history and philosophy of science, xxxiv (2003), 2003–59; and Sewell K. C. , “The ‘Herbert Butterfield problem’ and its resolution”, Journal of the history of ideas, lxiv (2003), 2003–618.

See, for instance, Stocking , op. cit. (ref. 1), 3; Graham , op. cit. (ref. 1), 4; Kragh H. , An introduction to the historiography of science (Cambridge, 1987), 93; Trout J. D. , “A realistic look backward”, Studies in history and philosophy of science, xxv (1994), 1994–64, p. 39; and Nickles T. , “Philosophy of science and history of science”, Osiris, n.s., x (1995), 1995–63, p. 203.

See, for instance, Wilson Ashplant , op. cit. (ref. 1), 11; Ashplant Wilson , op. cit. (ref. 1), 253; Cunningham A. , “Getting the game right: Some plain words on the identity and invention of science”, Studies in history and philosophy of science, xix (1988), 365–89; Brush , “Scientists as historians” (ref. 1), 220; Hardcastle , op. cit. (ref. 1), 334; Tosh , op. cit. (ref. 1), 649.

Tosh , op. cit. (ref. 1), 649.

Tosh , op. cit. (ref. 1), 653.

For detailed accounts of Butterfield's life and work see Cowling M. , “Herbert Butterfield. 1900–1979”, Proceedings of the British Academy, lxv (1979), 595–609; Elton G. R. , “Herbert Butterfield and the study of history”, The historical journal, xxvii (1984), 1984–43; McIntire C. T. , Herbert Butterfield: Historian as dissenter (New Haven, 2004); and Sewell K. C. , Herbert Butterfield and the interpretation of history (New York, 2005).

Metzger H. , La genèse de la science des cristaux (Paris, 1969; first pub. 1918); Metzger H. , Les doctrines chimiques en France du début du XVIIe à la fin du XVIIIe siècle (Paris, 1969; first pub. 1923); Metzger H. , Newton, Stahl, Boerhaave et la doctrine chimique (Paris, 1974; first pub. 1930); Metzger H. , Attraction universelle et religion naturelle chez quelques commentateurs anglais de Newton (Paris, 1938).

Kuhn T. , “Energy conservation as an example of simultaneous discovery” (first pub. in 1959), in Kuhn T. , The essential tension: Selected studies in scientific tradition and change (Chicago, 1977), 66–104, p. 102; Kuhn T. , The structure of scientific revolution (Chicago, 1962), p. viii; and Kuhn T. , “The history of science” (first pub. in 1968) in Kuhn, The essential tension, 105–26, p. 111.

See Christie J. R. R. , “Narrative and rhetoric in Hélène Metzger's historiography of eighteenth-century chemistry”, History of science, xxv (1987), 99–109; Golinski J. , “Hélène Metzger and the interpretation of seventeenth-century chemistry”, History of science, xxv (1987), 1987–97; Schmitt C. B. , “Some considerations on the study of the history of seventeenth-century science: Lessons from Hélène Metzger”, Corpus, nos 8–9 (1988), 23–33; Melhado E. M. , “Metzger, Kuhn, and eighteenth-century disciplinary history”, Corpus, nos 8–9 (1988), 111–35.

Metzger H. , “L'historien des sciences doit-il se faire le contemporain des savants dont il parle?”, Archeion, xv (1933), 34–44; Metzger H. , “Tribunal de l'histoire et théorie de la connaissance scientifique”, Archeion, xvii (1935), 1935–14; Metzger H. , “L'a priori dans la doctrine scientifique et l'histoire des sciences”, Archeion, xviii (1936), 1936–42; Metzger H. , “La méthode philosophique dans l'histoire des sciences”, Archeion, xix (1937), 1937–16; and Metzger H. , “Le rôle des précurseurs dans l'évolution de la science”, Thalès, iv (1937–39), 199–209. These essays have been assembled by Gad Freudenthal in Metzger H. , La méthode philosophique en histoire des sciences: Textes 1914–1939 (Paris, 1987).

Freudenthal G. , “The hermeneutical status of the history of science: The views of Hélène Metzger”, in Ullmann-Margalit E. (ed.), Science in reflection (New York, 1988), 123–44. For an introduction to Metzger's historiographical essays, see Cristina Chimisso's work: Chimisso C. , “Hélène Metzger: The history of science between the study of mentalities and total history”, Studies in history and philosophy of science, xxxii (2001), 2001–41; Moro-Abadía O. , “Beyond the whig interpretation of history: Lessons on ‘presentism’ from Hélène Metzger”, Studies in history and philosophy of science, xxxix (2008), 2008–201.

As I have argued in Moro-Abadia, op. cit. (ref. 11).

Using David Hull's expression: Hull D. L. , “The professionalization of sciences studies: Cutting some slack”, Biology and philosophy, xv (2000), 61–91, p. 71.

Butterfield H. , The whig interpretation of history (London, 1973 [Penguin Books; first published 1931]), 9.

Metzger , Newton, Stahl, Boerhaave et la doctrine chimique (ref. 7), 6.

Butterfield , op. cit. (ref. 14), 29.

See, for instance, Wilson Ashplant , op. cit. (ref. 1); Ashplant Wilson , op. cit. (ref. 1); Hardcastle, op. cit. (ref. 1); Pickstone, op. cit. (ref. 1); and Jardine, “Uses and abuses of anachronism in the history of the sciences” (ref. 1).

Butterfield H. , The study of modern history (London, 1944), 15.

Hull , op. cit. (ref. 13), 71.

Graham , op. cit. (ref. 1), 4; Russell , op. cit. (ref. 1), 777; Harrison , op. cit. (ref. 1), 213; Nickles , op. cit. (ref. 2), 151; Jardine , “Whigs and stories” (ref. 1), 127; Radder H. , “Philosophy and history of science: Beyond the Kuhnian paradigm”, Studies in history and philosophy of science, xxviii (1994), 633–53, p. 635.

Jardine , “Whigs and stories” (ref. 1), 128.

Kuhn , “The history of science” (ref. 8).

Kuhn , “The history of science” (ref. 8), 107.

Kuhn , “The history of science” (ref. 8), 108.

Kuhn , “The history of science” (ref. 8), 110.

Graham , op. cit. (ref. 1), 4.

Williams L. Pearce , “Review: Should philosophers be allowed to write history”, The British journal for the philosophy of science, xxvi (1975), 241–53, p. 246.

Stocking , op. cit. (ref. 1), 3.

Crombie A. C. , Augustine to Galileo: The history of science A.D. 400–1650 (London, 1952).

Crombie , op. cit. (ref. 29), p. xiii.

Crombie A. C. , Augustine to Galileo: The history of science A.D. 400–1650, 2nd edn (London, 1979), 21–27.

Crombie , op. cit. (ref. 31), 23.

Kragh , op. cit. (ref. 2), 90.

McEvoy J. , “Positivism, whiggism, and the chemical revolution: A study in the historiography of chemistry”, History of science, xxxv (1997), 1–33, p. 1.

See, for instance, McIntire , op. cit. (ref. 6); Sewell , op. cit. (ref. 6).

Fisher H. A. L. , “The whig historians”, Proceedings of the British Academy, xiv (1928), 297–339.

Butterfield H. , The origins of history (London, 1981), 192.

MacAulay T. B. , Macaulay's critical and historical essays, ii (London, 1874), 222.

MacAulay T. B. , The history of England from the accession of James the Second, i (London, 1913; first pub. 1848), 2.

Butterfield , op. cit. (ref. 14), 29.

Butterfield , op. cit. (ref. 14), 9.

The whig habit to study the past with reference to the present was also denounced by Butterfield in later works: Butterfield, op. cit. (ref. 18), 33; Butterfield H. , The Englishman and his history (London, 1944), 33–36.

Butterfield , op. cit. (ref. 14), 36.

Butterfield , op. cit. (ref. 14), 32, 35, 47.

Butterfield H. , “History and the Marxian method”, Scrutiny, i (1933), 339–55, p. 339.

Butterfield , op. cit. (ref. 14), 29.

Butterfield , op. cit. (ref. 14), 58.

Schmitt , op. cit. (ref. 9), 24; Chimisso , op. cit. (ref. 11), 232.

Mieli A. , “Le réveil recent des études d'histoire des sciences et sa signification”, Scientia, xvii (1915), 7.

Metzger H. , “Compte-rendu: The study of the history of science de Georges Sarton”, Archeion, xviii (1936), 376–80, p. 379.

Metzger H. , “Compte-rendu: La formation de l'esprit scientifique de Gaston Bachelard”, Archeion, xxi (1938), 162–65, p. 165.

Metzger H. , “La signification de l'histoire de la pensée scientifique”, Scientia, lvii (1935), 449–53, p. 450.

Metzger , Newton, Stahl, Boerhaave et la doctrine chimique (ref. 7), 7.

Metzger , “L'historien des sciences doit-il se faire le contemporain des savants dont il parle?” (ref. 10), 40.

Ibid.

Ibid.

Metzger , Newton, Stahl, Boerhaave et la doctrine chimique (ref. 7), 6.

Butterfield , op. cit. (ref. 14), 70, 16 and 20.

Butterfield H. , The historical novel (Cambridge, 1924), 8 and 10.

Butterfield , op. cit. (ref. 18), 7 and 9.

Metzger H. , “Eugène Chevreul, historien de la chimie”, Archeion, xiv (1932), 6–11, p. 11.

Metzger , op. cit. (ref. 61), 11.

Metzger , op. cit. (ref. 61), 6.

Metzger H. , Chemistry (West Cornwall, CT, 1991; first pub. 1930), 6.

Butterfield , op. cit. (ref. 14), 18.

Butterfield , op. cit. (ref. 14), 18.

Butterfield , op. cit. (ref. 45), 353.

Butterfield , op. cit. (ref. 14), 18.

Butterfield , op. cit. (ref. 14), 18.

Butterfield , op. cit. (ref. 14), 17, 18, 21, 34.

Butterfield , op. cit. (ref. 14), 17.

Metzger , op. cit. (ref. 61), 11.

See, for instance, Chimisso , op. cit. (ref. 11), and Moro-Abadía , op. cit. (ref. 11).

Metzger H. , La philosophie de la matière chez Lavoisier (Paris, 1935).

Metzger , op. cit. (ref. 74), 6.

Metzger , op. cit. (ref. 74), 7.

Lavoisier A. L. , Œuvres de Lavoisier, publiées par les soins de son excellence le ministre de l'instruction publique et des cultes (Paris, 1862–93), i, 101.

Metzger , op. cit. (ref. 74), 19.

Metzger , op. cit. (ref. 74), 21.

Metzger , Les doctrines chimiques en France du début du XVIIe à la fin du XVIIIe siècle (ref. 7), 8.

Sewell , op. cit. (ref. 1), 601.

See, for instance, Golinski , op. cit. (ref. 9), 86; Chimisso , op. cit. (ref. 11), 214; Moro-Abadía , op. cit. (ref. 11), 197.

Koyré A. , “La pensée moderne” (first pub. 1930), in Koyré A. , Études d'histoire de la pensée scientifique (Paris, 1966), 16–23.

Koyré A. , “Orientation et projets de recherches” (first pub. 1955) in Koyré, Études (ref. 83), 11–15, pp. 12–13.

Braudel F. , A history of civilizations (New York, 1994; first pub. 1963), 22.

Butterfield , op. cit. (ref. 14), 9.

Butterfield , op. cit. (ref. 14), 14.

Butterfield , op. cit. (ref. 14), 52.

Butterfield , op. cit. (ref. 14), 52.

Nickles , op. cit. (ref. 2), 151.

Hull , op. cit. (ref. 1), 3.

Jardine , “Whigs and stories” (ref. 1), 135.

Wilson Ashplant , op. cit. (ref. 1), 11.

Hall , op. cit. (ref. 1), 48.

Winsor M. P. , “The practitioner of science: Everyone her own historian”, Journal of the history of biology, xxxiv (2001), 229–45, pp. 229, 245, 235.

Pickstone , op. cit. (ref. 1), 2005.

Winsor , op. cit. (ref. 95), 235.

Hardcastle , op. cit. (ref. 1).

Jardine , “Uses and abuses of anachronism in the history of the sciences” (ref. 1).

See, for instance, Hall , op. cit. (ref. 1), 48; Brush , “Scientists as historians” (ref. 1), 221.

Butterfield , op. cit. (ref. 14), 17.

Butterfield , op. cit. (ref. 14), 20 and 14.

Butterfield , op. cit. (ref. 45), 354.

Butterfield , op. cit. (ref. 45), 353.

Butterfield , op. cit. (ref. 18), 18.

Butterfield , op. cit. (ref. 18), 33.

Butterfield , op. cit. (ref. 14), 70.

Butterfield , op. cit. (ref. 14), 69.

Butterfield , op. cit. (ref. 14), 69.

Butterfield , op. cit. (ref. 45), 355.

Butterfield , op. cit. (ref. 14), 71.

Jardine , “Whigs and stories” (ref. 1), 135.

Gadamer H. G. , Truth and method (New York, 1986; 1st edn 1960), 239.

Metzger , “L'historien des sciences doit-il se faire le contemporain des savants dont il parle?” (ref. 10), 34.

Metzger , “L'historien des sciences doit-il se faire le contemporain des savants dont il parle?” (ref. 10), 34–35.

Metzger , “L'a priori dans la doctrine scientifique et l'histoire des sciences” (ref. 10), 33.

Metzger , “L'a priori dans la doctrine scientifique et l'histoire des sciences” (ref. 10), 33.

Butterfield , op. cit. (ref. 14), 16.

Metzger , “La méthode philosophique dans l'histoire des sciences” (ref. 10), 206.

Metzger , “L'a priori dans la doctrine scientifique et l'histoire des sciences” (ref. 10), 38.

Metzger , “L'a priori dans la doctrine scientifique et l'histoire des sciences” (ref. 10), 34.

Butterfield , op. cit. (ref. 14), 68.

Butterfield , op. cit. (ref. 14), 69.

Butterfield , op. cit. (ref. 14), 69; Butterfield , op. cit. (ref. 18), 31.

Butterfield , op. cit. (ref. 18), 15.

Butterfield , op. cit. (ref. 14), 70.

Butterfield , op. cit. (ref. 14), 69.

Butterfield , op. cit. (ref. 14), 70.

Butterfield , op. cit. (ref. 18), 18.

Metzger , “La méthode philosophique dans l'histoire des sciences” (ref. 10), 206; Metzger , “Tribunal de l'histoire et théorie de la connaissance scientifique” (ref. 10), 6.

Metzger , “La méthode philosophique dans l'histoire des sciences” (ref. 10), 205.

Metzger , “L'historien des sciences doit-il se faire le contemporain des savants dont il parle?” (ref. 10), 35.

Metzger , “L'historien des sciences doit-il se faire le contemporain des savants dont il parle?” (ref. 10), 36.

Metzger , “La méthode philosophique dans l'histoire des sciences” (ref. 10), 207.

Metzger , “L'historien des sciences doit-il se faire le contemporain des savants dont il parle?” (ref. 10), 35.

Hume D. , A treatise of human nature (Oxford, 1955; first edn 1739–40), 427.

Hume , op. cit. (ref. 136), 316.

Hume , op. cit. (ref. 136), 385.

Hume , op. cit. (ref. 136), 386.

Hume , op. cit. (ref. 136), 98.

Farr J. , “Hume, hermeneutics, and history: A «sympathetic» account”, History and theory, xvii (1978), 285–310; Stockton C. Noble , “Hume — Historian of the English constitution”, Eighteenth-century studies, iv (1971), 1971–93.

Dunn J. , “The identity of the history of ideas”, Philosophy, xliii (1968), 85–104.

Skinner Q. , “Meaning and understanding in the history of ideas”, History and theory, viii (1969), 3–53.

Skinner , op. cit. (ref. 143), 40.

Pocock J. G. A. , “The history of political thought: A methodological enquiry”, in Laslett Peter Runciman W. G. (eds), Philosophy, politics and society (New York, 1962), 183–202.

Peel J. D. Y. , Herbert Spencer: The evolution for a sociologist (New York, 1971).

Coser L. A. , Masters of sociological thought (New York, 1971).

Jones R. A. , “Durkheim's response to Spencer: An essay toward historicism in the historiography of sociology”, The sociological quarterly, xv (1974), 341–58.

Peel , op. cit. (ref. 146), 264.

Stocking , op. cit. (ref. 1).

Seidman S. , “Beyond presentism and historicism: Understanding the history of social science”, Sociological inquiry, liii (1983), 79–94, p. 84.

Skinner , op. cit. (ref. 143).

Skinner , op. cit. (ref. 143), 51.

Skinner , op. cit. (ref. 143), 51.

See, for instance, Parekh B. Berki R. N. , “The history of political ideas: A critique of Q. Skinner's methodology”, Journal of the history of ideas, xxxiv (1973), 163–84; Minogue K. R. , “Method in intellectual history: Quentin Skinner's foundations”, Philosophy, lvi (1981), 1981–52.

Skinner , op. cit. (ref. 143), 28.

Skinner , op. cit. (ref. 143), 30.

Tosh , op. cit. (ref. 1), 655.

Ashplant Wilson , op. cit. (ref. 1), 263.