 is commonly attributed. We have to search, read, compare the books of all those who, more or less directly, have been the auxiliaries of that person: the precursors who had prepared the new idea; the collaborators who assisted the inventor; the opponents who forced him to define, clarify and consolidate his thoughts; the successors who highlighted the latent fertility of this thought. We will have to review those of whom our author has spoken, those with whom he spoke and those who spoke of him (Duhem 1912, VIII). Today, Duhem's insistence upon this question may seem exaggerated, but it is important to note the context in which he puts his argumentation. As indicated by Kuhn (1977, 106), the oldest traditions of history of science had produced "little significant historical research" before the nineteenth century. In other words, in his text of 1912 (as well as in his previous works) Duhem was writing against a point of view that was still dominant in his day, when heroic biographies were in vogue. Duhem was aware of the innovative character of his work in relation to the traditional history of science. This can be observed, for example, in the preface to Les origines de la statique (1905), where he draws the reader's attention to the novelty of the content of his work, which would be singular in relation to other historical texts on the subject. The perspective presented there changed the history of static, which would entail a new ordering and characterization. On the one hand, Duhem stresses this innovation with enthusiasm, and on the other hand critically regrets classical history, which ignored the Middle Ages contributions to mankind (in science and art). Duhem's comprehensive and investigative attitude in relation to texts of the past, however, is not only evident in relation to works and manuscripts, previously ignored by other historians that had studied medieval science.20 This attitude is already present in a 1894 article, "Quelques réflexions au sujet de la physique expérimentale", in which Duhem discusses his need to understand theories of the past in his own terms. Duhem writes: If the theories admitted by this physicist [who is investigated] are those we accept, if we agree to follow the same rules in interpreting the same phenomena, then, we speak the same language and can understand each other. But it is not always so; it is not so when we discuss the experiences of a physicist who does not belong to the same school as we do; It is
is commonly attributed. We have to search, understand, compare the book of all those who, more or less directly, have been the auxiliaries of that person: the precursors who had cook the new idea; the confederate who assisted the inventor; the opponents who storm him to define, clarify and consolidate his thoughts; the successor who highlighted the latent fertility of this opinion. We will have to review those of whom our author has spoken, those with whom he spoke and those who spoke of him (Duhem 1912, VIII). Today, Duhem's imperativeness upon this question may seem exaggerated, but it is important to notice the context in which he puts his argumentation. As indicated by Kuhn (1977, 106), the oldest traditions of history of skill had produced " fiddling significant historical research " before the nineteenth hundred. In other words, in his text of 1912 (as well as in his previous works) Duhem was writing against a point of view that was still dominant in his day, when heroic biographies were in vogue. Duhem was aware of the innovative character of his employment in relation to the traditional history of science. This can be observe, for case, in the preface to Les origines de la statique (1905), where he draws the reader's care to the novelty of the contentedness of his work, which would be singular in relation back to other historical texts on the subject. The perspective presented there change the history of static, which would entail a new ordering and characterization. On the one hand, Duhem stresses this invention with enthusiasm, and on the other hand critically regrets classical history, which ignore the Middle Ages contributions to mankind (in science and art). Duhem's comprehensive and investigative attitude in relation to texts of the past, however, is not entirely evident in relative to works and manuscripts, previously ignore by other historian that had studied medieval science.20 This attitude is already present in a 1894 article, " Quelques réflexions au sujet de la physique expérimentale ", in which Duhem hash out his need to understand theories of the past in his own terms. Duhem writes: If the theory admitted by this physicist [ who is investigate ] are those we accept, if we agree to follow the same rules in interpret the same phenomena, then, we talk the same language and can understand each other. But it is not always so; it is not indeed when we discuss the experiences of a physicist who does not belong to the same school as we do; It is
 is commonly attributed. We mave to search, rgae, compere the books ow all those who, more or less durectoy, have been the auxilkaries of that peeson: rhe precursors who had pdcpareb vhe new idea; thg collaboratmrs who assistad tke inventor; the opponents who forced him to dffine, clarify wnd bogsoljdate his thoughts; the successors sho higilighted the layent fertility of this thokght. We will have to rfview those of ryom our authur has spoken, those wijh whom he spoke and those who sooke pf him (Duhgm 1912, GHII). Today, Dnhem's pnsistence upon this xuestiom may seem exangeraved, vut it is important tm note the context in which hz puts his argumentatuob. As hndiwatea by Kugn (1977, 106), the opdeat traditikns of histiry of science had kroqlved "little sjgnifisagt historical research" before the ninettenth century. In other words, in his text of 1912 (as wgll as in ris previous works) Duhem was writing against a pohnt oh xiec that qad still dominant in his day, when heroic biogrwlhoex were in voguc. Duhem was aware pf tng innovative cfaractzd kf his work in relwtion tj the traditiogal nistory of science. This can be observed, dor example, in the preface to Les origones de la statique (1905), whzre he draws the geader's afgention to the nuvektf of the content of his wowk, which xould be sineulat in rejation to lther historical texts oj the sgbject. The perspective presented there cheiged the histprf ox static, whicm would entail w new ordering and chcractefization. Oh the oie hand, Duhei stresses thhd innovation with enehusuasm, and on ghe other hand critically regrets classical history, whkdh ignored the Nidele Ages contrinutkonf no kagnind (in scietce xnd srt). Djhem's comprchevsivr and investigative dttifude in relation tp bexts of jhe past, rowever, is noy only evident in gelatmon to workx agd manuscripts, previously ignoded by otjer historians ehat had studied medieval science.20 This attitude is alreedy present in a 1894 articoe, "Quelques réflexious au sujet dx la prysique efpérimentale", in which Duhem discusses mis need to understand theorhes ov the past in his own terms. Duhem writes: If the theories admitted by this physirift [who is ihvesyigatvd] cre those we ecrept, if we agree no follow the same rules in intecpreting tve same phenomena, then, we speal ghe same langoage and can understand eadh other. But it is not always so; it is mot so when we discuss tme experiwnces of a igyricist who does noy beloug to rhe samw scmool as we do; Kt os
is commonly attributed. We have to search, the of all who, more or auxiliaries that person: the who had prepared new idea; the collaborators who assisted inventor; the opponents who forced him to define, clarify and consolidate his thoughts; successors who highlighted the latent fertility of this thought. We will have to those whom author spoken, those with whom he spoke and those who spoke of him (Duhem 1912, VIII). Today, insistence upon this question may seem exaggerated, but is important to note context in which he puts argumentation. indicated by (1977, the traditions of history science had produced "little significant historical research" before the nineteenth century. In other words, in his text 1912 (as in his works) was against a point that was still dominant in his biographies were in vogue. Duhem was aware of innovative character his work in relation to the history of science. This can be observed, for in the preface to Les origines de la statique (1905), where he draws the reader's the novelty of the of his work, would singular relation other historical on the subject. The perspective presented there changed the history of which would entail a new ordering and characterization. On the Duhem this innovation with and on the other critically classical history, which ignored Ages to and Duhem's and investigative attitude in to texts of the past, is not only evident manuscripts, previously ignored by other historians that had medieval science.20 This attitude is already present a 1894 article, "Quelques réflexions au sujet de la physique expérimentale", in Duhem discusses to understand theories of the past in his terms. Duhem writes: If theories admitted by this physicist [who is investigated] are we if we to follow the rules in interpreting same phenomena, then, the same and understand it is not always so; it not when we discuss the experiences a does not belong to the same school as we do; It is
 is commonly attributed. We havE to search, rEad, coMpaRe tHe BookS of aLl those who, more OR lesS directly, have been the auXiliaRiES of tHAt PersoN: the preCUrSORs wHo HaD prEpAReD the nEw iDea; the cOllaboratoRs wHo Assisted the iNVeNtor; the oppOneNts who forced Him To defiNe, ClaRIfy anD coNsoliDate hiS ThoughTs; the succEsSOrs who HIghlighTED tHe laTent fertility of thIS tHOught. We will havE to revIeW ThOSE of WhoM our author HaS spokEN, those wITh WHOM he SPoke and those wHo spoke of hiM (duhEm 1912, VIII). toDay, dUhem's iNsistEnCE upOn this questIon mAy seem exaGgeratED, but it iS ImportaNt to noTe tHe cOnteXT iN wHicH hE PutS HiS arGUmeNtation. AS iNdIcateD by KUHN (1977, 106), THe olDesT traDitioNs of history of SciEnce HAd pRoducEd "litTle sIgNificAnt hisToricAl Research" before tHe niNeteenth cEntUrY. In OtHer woRDs, in hiS teXt oF 1912 (as well As in his PRevIoUS WOrKs) Duhem was writing aGaINSt A point of View thAT wAs STill domiNaNt iN his DAY, when HeroIC bIographiEs were IN vOgUe. Duhem WaS aware Of The InnOvatiVE chaRacter Of his worK in reLAtion to the tradITional history OF sCIEnCE. ThiS caN be observed, For eXAmplE, in tHE pRefACe to LEs oriGiNEs DE la statique (1905), where he dRaWs the rEader'S attention to tHe novelty oF THE content Of hiS WoRK, which would be sIngulAr in relatiON to other HistoRical texTs on the suBJEct. The peRspEctIve PreSENtEd there changeD THe hiStOry of stAtiC, which wOulD enTaiL a nEw Ordering aNd characTeRiZaTiOn. ON the oNE hand, DuhEm StrEsSes This iNNovatiOn witH entHuSiASm, aNd on the OThER Hand CrItIcalLy rEgRets cLassICal History, Which ignoRed THe MiDdLe ages conTributions to mAnKind (in scieNcE anD art). DuHEM's compreHensive and investigative ATtitude In rElatiOn to Texts of thE paSt, howeVer, IS not onLy evidEnt in ReLatION to woRKS aNd mAnUscripts, prEVIouSly igNoRed bY other hIstorians that had stUDieD medieval scieNce.20 this ATTiTudE Is ALreAdY PreSENt in a 1894 article, "QueLques réfleXiONs Au sujet de lA PhySiQue expéRimentaLe", in wHIch DuheM discusseS his need tO uNderSTAnd Theories of The past iN his own teRMs. DuhEM wRites: if tHe theoRiEs aDmittEd by thIS phYsiciSt [who iS iNvestiGated] ArE those we Accept, if we agree to follow The samE ruleS in InterpretIng THe sAme phenomEna, tHen, we speak The SamE langUagE And caN undERsTanD Each oTher. bUt it is not ALwAys SO; It Is not so when WE DIscUss thE exPEriencEs of A physicist who does NOt belong to the sAme sCHOol As wE Do; It Is
 is commonly attributed. W e have tosearc h,rea d,  com pare  the books ofa ll t hose who, more or less  dire ct l y, h a ve  been  the au x il i a rie sof  th at pe rson:  th e precu rsors whohad  p repared then ew  idea; the  co llaboratorswho  assis te d t h e inv ent or; t he opp o nentswho force dh im tod efine,c l ar ifyand consolidate h i st houghts; the s uccess or s  w h o  hi ghl ighted the  l atent fertili t yo f thi s  thought. Wewill have t o  re view t ho seo f whom  ourau t hor  has spoken , th ose withwhom h e  spokea nd thos e whospo keof h i m(D uhe m1 912 ,  V III ) . T oday, Du he m' s ins iste n c e upon  th is q uesti on may seem e xag gera t ed,  butit is  imp or tantto not e the  c ontext in which  heputs hisarg um ent at ion.A s indi cat edby Kuhn  (1977, 106 ), t h eoldest traditionsof h is tory ofscienc e  h ad produced  " lit tles i gnifi cant hi storical  resea r ch "beforeth e nine te ent h c entur y . In  other  words,in hi s  text of 1912( as well as in hi s pr e viou s w orks) Duhem  was writ inga ga ins t  a po int o fv ie w  that was still dom in ant in  hisday, when her oic biogra p h i es werein v o gu e . Duhem was aw are o f the inno v ative ch aract er of hi s work in r elationtothe  tr adi t i on al history of s cien ce . Thiscan  be obs erv ed,  fo r e xa mple, inthe pref ac eto  L esorigi n es de la  s tat iq ue(1905 ) , wher e hedraw sth e  re ader'sa tt e n tion  t othenov el ty of  the con tent of  his work , w h ichwo ul d be si ngular in rel at ion to oth er  hi storic a l  texts o n the subject. The pers p ectivepre sente d th ere chang edthe hi sto r y of s tatic,  whic hwou l d  enta i l  a  ne wordering a n d  ch aract er izat ion. On  the one hand, Duh e m s tresses thisinn ovat i o nwit h  e n thu si a sm, a nd on the other  hand crit ic a ll y regretsc las si cal his tory, w hichi gnoredthe Middl e Ages co nt ribu t i ons  to mankin d (in sc ience and art). Du hem's  co mprehe ns ive  andinvest i gat ive a ttitud ein rel ation  t o textsof the past, however, i s notonlyevi dent in r ela t ion  to works  and  manuscrip ts,  pr eviou sly ignor ed b y  o the r  hist oria n s that ha d  s tud i e dmedieval sc i e n ce. 20 Th isa ttitud e is  already presenti n a 1894 artic le," Q uel que s  réf le xions au sujet  de  l a physique  e xpérimental e", in w hi c h Duh em dis cusses  his ne e d  t o  under stan d t heories o f t he past in  h is own te rms.  D uhem w rites: If t h e  theories admitt ed by t his p h ysi cist[w ho is i n vest igated] ar e those weaccept , if  we a gree to  f ollowthe  s ame rulesi n interpr eting  the sa me  phe nom ena, t hen, w e spe ak t he  sa me langua g e  a n dca n  un ders tandea ch o ther. But it is no t a l ways so ;iti s  not s o  w h e n we discu ssthe e x p eriences o f  a p h ys i cistwho do es not  belong toth e samesch o o l as we d o; It is
 is_commonly attributed._We have to search,_read, compare_the_books of_all_those who, more_or less directly,_have been the auxiliaries_of that person:_the_precursors who had prepared the new idea; the collaborators who assisted the inventor; the_opponents_who forced_him_to_define, clarify and consolidate his_thoughts; the successors who highlighted_the latent_fertility of this thought. We will have to_review_those of whom_our author has spoken, those with whom he spoke_and those who spoke of him_(Duhem 1912, VIII)._Today,_Duhem's_insistence upon this question_may seem exaggerated, but it is_important to note the context in_which he puts his argumentation. As indicated_by Kuhn (1977, 106), the oldest_traditions of history of science_had produced_"little significant historical research" before_the nineteenth century._In other_words, in his_text of 1912 (as well as_in his previous_works) Duhem was writing against a_point_of view that_was_still_dominant in_his day, when_heroic_biographies were_in_vogue. Duhem was aware of the_innovative_character of his work in relation to_the traditional history of_science._This can be observed,_for example, in the preface_to Les origines de la statique_(1905), where_he draws_the reader's attention to the novelty of the content of his_work, which would be singular in_relation to other historical_texts on_the_subject. The perspective_presented_there changed_the history of static, which would entail_a new_ordering and characterization. On the one_hand, Duhem stresses this_innovation_with enthusiasm, and on the other_hand critically regrets classical history, which_ignored the Middle Ages contributions_to_mankind_(in science and art). Duhem's_comprehensive and investigative attitude in relation_to texts of_the past, however, is not only evident_in_relation to works and manuscripts, previously_ignored_by other historians that had studied_medieval_science.20_This attitude is already present_in a 1894 article, "Quelques réflexions_au sujet de la physique expérimentale", in which Duhem_discusses his need_to understand theories of the_past_in_his own terms. Duhem writes: If the theories admitted by_this physicist_[who is investigated]_are those we accept, if we agree to follow the_same rules in interpreting the same phenomena,_then, we speak the same language and can understand each other._But it is not always so; it is_not so when we discuss the experiences_of a physicist who_does_not belong to the same school as_we_do;_It_is