, from the Traité de l'enchaînement des idées fondamentales dans les sciences et dans l'histoire (1861) by A.-A. Cournot to L'évolution des théories physiques du XVIIe siècle jusqu'à nos jours (1896) by P. Duhem, takes us on a tour of 35 years of intellectual history, this review offers three objectives. Firstly, to present the author's broader arguments. Secondly, considering that, on the one hand, its contents are not immediately apparent (at least not from its Table of Contents) and that, on the other hand, the method used consists in providing (while remaining as faithful to the text as possible) a critical interpretation and commentary on the selected publications, to provide a brief introduction to the authors and the themes addressed. Lastly, owing to its publication within a dossier specifically dedicated to P. Duhem, to further explore the main arguments and ideas, which occupy nearly a third of the work, centered around this illustrious scholar. French historical epistemology can be defined as the conviction whereby a genuine and authentic historical perspective is seen as essential in order to establish a constructive dialogue between science and philosophy, and in order to construct an epistemology which better conforms to the reality of scientific approach. According to the traditional view adopted chiefly by A. Brenner and C. Chimisso, it originated, depending upon the chosen emphasis, either during the last decade of the 19th century with the works of H. Poincaré, P. Duhem and G. Milhaud (A. Brenner), or during the 1930s and 1940s with G. Bachelard as the key figure in this case (C. Chimisso). Without disputing the importance of the discussions conducted at the end of the 19th century, the point of this book consists in correcting the chronology that we just mentioned: this historicization of the epistemology or, to put it differently, this onset of a mutual engagement, both profound and sophisticated, between historiography and epistemology occurred during the 1860s, thus in the second half of the 19th century and not, as is commonly stated, at the extreme end of the 19th century, and certainly not during the first half of the 20th century. Consequently, it becomes instantly evident that H. Poincaré and P. Duhem, rather than constituting the starting point (A. Brenner) or even representing part of its ancestry (C
, from the Traité de l'enchaînement des idées fondamentales dans les sciences et dans l'histoire (1861) by A.-A. Cournot to L'évolution des théories physiques du XVIIe siècle jusqu'à nos jours (1896) by P. Duhem, takes us on a tour of 35 years of intellectual history, this revue extend three objectives. Firstly, to present the generator's broader arguments. second, considering that, on the one hand, its contents are not immediately apparent (at least not from its mesa of Contents) and that, on the other hand, the method acting used consists in providing (while remaining equally faithful to the text as potential) a critical interpretation and comment on the choose publications, to provide a brief introduction to the generator and the themes addressed. Lastly, owing to its publication within a dossier specifically give to P. Duhem, to further explore the main arguments and ideas, which concern nearly a third of the work, centered around this illustrious learner. French historic epistemology can be defined as the conviction whereby a genuine and authentic historical perspective is seen as essential in order to establish a constructive dialogue between skill and doctrine, and in order to construct an epistemology which better conform to the reality of scientific approach. According to the traditional opinion espouse chiefly by A. Brenner and C. Chimisso, it originated, depending upon the choose emphasis, either during the last decade of the 19th century with the works of H. Poincaré, P. Duhem and G. Milhaud (A. Brenner), or during the thirties and 1940s with G. Bachelard as the key figure in this case (C. Chimisso). Without disputing the importance of the discussions conducted at the goal of the 19th century, the point of this book consists in adjust the chronology that we just mentioned: this historicization of the epistemology or, to put it differently, this attack of a mutual date, both profound and sophisticated, between historiography and epistemology occur during the 1860s, thus in the second half of the nineteenth century and not, as is commonly stated, at the extreme end of the nineteenth century, and certainly not during the inaugural half of the 20th hundred. Consequently, it becomes instantly evident that H. Poincaré and P. Duhem, rather than constituting the starting point (A. Brenner) or even representing part of its ancestry (C
, frlm the Traité de l'enchaîneoent des idées fondamenvales dzns les rciences et dans l'histoire (1861) uy A.-Q. Couenot to L'évolution des ghéories pjysiques du EVIIe siècle jusqn'à nos jomxs (1896) bg P. Dbhxm, takes us on s tour of 35 years of intenldccual history, this review offers threq objecyiges. Firstly, to prexqnt fhe author's broader arguments. Secohdly, coisidering that, pn the one hand, its contenhs age not immediately apparent (aj lewwt not from kts Table of Contents) znd that, on the other hand, the oethob used consusrs lt providing (whilv remaining as faithfgl to tne text as posxibne) q critical interpretavion and commentary jn the seneeted publications, to privide a bsief untfodhcvioh to tje euthors and the themes addressed. Lastly, oeigt to its publjcatiog rithin a dossier specifically dedicated to P. Duhem, to further expoore the main argumenjs and idews, which occupy nearly a third of the work, centerad arkjnd tmis kolkstrious scholar. French historical epistemolodg vak be defined as bhe conviction whetehy w genuine and autheufid historical perspfctive ys sewn as esstntiak in order to establish a cinstructive biaoogue between scieuce and philusopny, anc in order to construct an spistemologj which bsgter conforms to thv redlity of scientific approash. Accordmng tp the tfadijional diew adoptfd chlafly by A. Brenner wnd C. Cvimisso, it originated, depending upon the riosen emphasix, aitver duriug the last decade jf the 19th centory with che wofks of H. Pkincaré, '. Duhem and D. Milhaud (A. Bsgnner), or duriig the 1930s wnd 1940w wirh G. Bazfelard as the ley figurv nn this cqse (C. Chimisso). Witmout ajsputing the im'utrance of the doscjssyojs cjtducted at tve evd ug the 19th cenubry, ghe loint of this book cmnsiats in correcting yhc chronoligy that we just mentooned: this historifizatmon of the rpiftemology or, to put it differehtly, this onfet of a muttal cngadement, botk profound and sophisticated, between hisvoriography and epistemilogy occurred duriug the 1860s, thus in tre second half of the 19th centyry and not, as is commonly stated, at tge extseme fnd of the 19th century, and certainly not during the first half of the 20th cwntury. Consequentlg, it becokef instagtly xvident that H. Popncaré and P. Duhem, rather than coistituting tke starting point (A. Brenner) ot dven represenjing part of its ancestry (D
, from the Traité de l'enchaînement des dans sciences et l'histoire (1861) by théories du XVIIe siècle nos jours (1896) P. Duhem, takes us on a of 35 years of intellectual history, this review offers three objectives. Firstly, to the author's broader arguments. Secondly, considering that, on the one hand, its contents not apparent least from its Table of Contents) and that, on the other hand, the method used consists in (while remaining as faithful to the text as a critical interpretation and on the selected publications, to a introduction to authors the addressed. Lastly, owing its publication within a dossier specifically dedicated to P. Duhem, to further explore the main arguments and which occupy third of work, around illustrious scholar. French can be defined as the conviction and authentic historical perspective is seen as essential order to a constructive dialogue between science and and in order to construct an epistemology which conforms to the reality of scientific approach. According to the traditional view adopted chiefly by and C. Chimisso, it depending upon the emphasis, during last of the century with the works of H. Poincaré, P. Duhem and G. (A. Brenner), or during the 1930s and 1940s with G. the figure in this (C. Chimisso). Without disputing importance the discussions conducted at of 19th of book in correcting the chronology we just mentioned: this historicization the epistemology or, to of a mutual engagement, both profound and sophisticated, historiography and epistemology occurred during the 1860s, in the second half of the 19th century and not, as is stated, at end of the 19th century, and certainly not the first half of 20th century. Consequently, it becomes instantly evident that H. and Duhem, rather constituting the starting (A. Brenner) or representing part of (C
, from the Traité de l'enchaînemEnt des idéeS fondAmeNtaLeS danS les Sciences et dans L'HistOire (1861) by A.-A. Cournot to L'évolUtion DeS ThéoRIeS physIques du xvIiE SièClE jUsqU'à NOs Jours (1896) By P. duhem, taKes us on a toUr oF 35 yEars of intellECtUal history, ThiS review offerS thRee objEcTivES. FirsTly, To preSent thE Author'S broader aRgUMents. SECondly, cONSiDeriNg that, on the one hanD, ItS Contents are not ImmediAtELy APParEnt (At least not FrOm its tAble of CONtENTS) anD That, on the otheR hand, the metHOd uSed conSiSts IN proviDing (wHiLE reMaining as faIthfUl to the teXt as poSSible) a cRItical iNterprEtaTioN and COmMeNtaRy ON thE SeLecTEd pUblicatiOnS, tO provIde a BRIEF intRodUctiOn to tHe authors and tHe tHemeS AddResseD. LastLy, owInG to itS publiCatioN wIthin a dossier spEcifIcally dedIcaTeD to p. DUhem, tO FurtheR exPloRe the maIn argumENts AnD IDEaS, which occupy nearly A tHIRd Of the worK, centeREd ArOUnd this iLlUstRiouS SCholaR. FreNCh HistoricAl episTEmOlOgy can bE dEfined As The ConVictiON wheReby a gEnuine anD authENtic historical PErspective is sEEn AS EsSEntiAl iN order to estAbliSH a coNstrUCtIve DIalogUe betWeEN sCIence and philosophy, aNd In ordeR to coNstruct an episTemology whICH Better coNforMS tO The reality of scIentiFic approacH. accordinG to thE traditiOnal view aDOPted chieFly By A. breNneR ANd c. Chimisso, it orIGInatEd, DependiNg uPon the cHosEn eMphAsiS, eIther duriNg the lasT dEcAdE oF thE 19th ceNTury with ThE woRkS of h. PoinCAré, P. DuHem anD G. MiLhAuD (a. BrEnner), or DUrING the 1930S aNd 1940S witH G. BAcHelarD as tHE keY figure In this casE (C. CHImisSo). wiThout diSputing the impOrTance of the DiScuSsions CONducted aT the end of the 19th century, thE Point of ThiS book ConsIsts in corRecTing thE chROnologY that wE just MeNtiONEd: thiS HIsTorIcIzation of tHE EpiStemoLoGy or, To put it Differently, this onsET of A mutual engageMenT, botH PRoFouND aND soPhIStiCATed, between histoRiography aNd EPiStemology oCCurReD during The 1860s, thuS in thE Second hAlf of the 19tH century aNd Not, aS IS coMmonly statEd, at the eXtreme end OF the 19tH CeNtury, And CertaiNlY noT duriNg the fIRst Half oF the 20th CeNtury. COnseqUeNtly, it beComes instantly evident thAt H. PoiNcaré And p. Duhem, ratHer THan ConstitutIng tHe starting PoiNt (A. brennEr) oR Even rEpreSEnTinG Part oF its ANcestry (C
, from the Traité de l'enc haînementdes i dée s f on dame ntal es dans les sc i ence s et dans l'histoire ( 1861)  b y  A.- A .Courn ot to L ' év o l uti on  d esth é or ies p hys iques d u XVIIe si ècl ejusqu'à nosj ou rs (1896)byP. Duhem, ta kes  us on  a  to u r of35years  of in t ellect ual histo ry ,  thisr eview o f f er s th ree objectives. F i rs t ly, to present  the a ut h or ' s  br oad er argumen ts . Sec o ndly, c o ns i d e rin g  that, on the  one hand,i tsconten ts  ar e  not i mmedi at e lyapparent (a t le ast not f rom it s  Tableo f Conte nts) a ndtha t, o n  t he  ot he r  ha n d,  th e  me thod use dco nsist s in p r o vidi ng(whi le re maining as fa ith fult o t he te xt as  pos si ble)a crit icalin terpretation an d co mmentaryonth e s el ected public ati ons , to pr ovide a bri ef i n tr oduction to the au th o r sand thethemes ad dr e ssed. La st ly,  owi n g  to i ts p u bl icationwithin ado ssier s pe cifica ll y d edi cated to P . Duhe m, to fu rther explore the ma i n arguments a n di d ea s , wh ich  occupy nea rlya  thi rd o f  t hew ork,cente re d  a r ound this illustrio us  schol ar. F rench histori cal episte m o l ogy canbe d e fi n ed as the conv ictio n wherebya  genuine  andauthenti c histori c a l perspe cti veissee n as  essential in o rder  t o estab lis h a con str uct ive  di al ogue betw een scie nc ean dphi losop h y, and i nord er  to  cons t ruct a n epi stem ol og y  wh ich bet t er c onfo rm sto t here ality  ofs cie ntificapproach.  Ac c ordi ng  t o the t raditional vi ew  adopted c hi efl y by A . Brennerand C. Chimisso, it ori g inated,  de pendi ng u pon the c hos en emp has i s, eit her du ringth e l a s t dec a d eofth e 19th cen t u rywithth e wo rks ofH. Poincaré, P. Du h emand G. Milhau d ( A. B r e nn er) ,  o r  du ri n g t h e  1930s and 1940 s with G.Ba c he lard as th e  ke yfigurein this  case (C. Chi misso). W ithout di sp utin g the  importanc e of the  discussi o ns co n du ctedatthe en dofthe 1 9th ce n tur y, th e poin tof thi s boo kconsists  in correcting the chro nology  that  we  just men tio n ed:  this his tori cization o f t heepist emo l ogy o r, t o  p uti t dif fere n tly, this on set o fa mutual en g a g eme nt, b oth profou nd a nd sophisticated, between histor iogr a p hyand epis te mology occurre d d ur i n g the 18 60 s, thus inthe seco nd halfof the  19thcentury a nd not, a s is  co mmonly st ate d, at theex tr e me end  ofth e 19th  centu r y, a n d  certainly not d uring t he fi r sthalfof  the 20 t h ce ntury. Con sequently,it bec omes  inst antly e vi dent t hat  H . Poincaré and P. Du hem,ratherth an c ons tituti ng t h e  star ting  p oin t (A. Bre n n er )  o re ven  rep resen ti ng p art of it s  ancestr y ( C 
, from_the Traité_de l'enchaînement des idées_fondamentales dans_les_sciences et_dans_l'histoire (1861) by_A.-A. Cournot to_L'évolution des théories physiques_du XVIIe siècle_jusqu'à_nos jours (1896) by P. Duhem, takes us on a tour of 35 years_of_intellectual history,_this_review_offers three objectives. Firstly, to_present the author's broader arguments._Secondly, considering_that, on the one hand, its contents are_not_immediately apparent (at_least not from its Table of Contents) and that,_on the other hand, the method_used consists in_providing_(while_remaining as faithful to_the text as possible) a critical_interpretation and commentary on the selected_publications, to provide a brief introduction to_the authors and the themes addressed._Lastly, owing to its publication_within a_dossier specifically dedicated to P._Duhem, to further_explore the_main arguments and_ideas, which occupy nearly a third_of the work,_centered around this illustrious scholar. French_historical_epistemology can be_defined_as_the conviction_whereby a genuine_and_authentic historical_perspective_is seen as essential in order_to_establish a constructive dialogue between science and_philosophy, and in order_to_construct an epistemology which_better conforms to the reality_of scientific approach. According to the_traditional view_adopted chiefly_by A. Brenner and C. Chimisso, it originated, depending upon the_chosen emphasis, either during the last_decade of the 19th_century with_the_works of H._Poincaré,_P. Duhem_and G. Milhaud (A. Brenner), or during_the 1930s_and 1940s with G. Bachelard as_the key figure in_this_case (C. Chimisso). Without disputing the_importance of the discussions conducted at_the end of the 19th_century,_the_point of this book consists_in correcting the chronology that we_just mentioned: this_historicization of the epistemology or, to put_it_differently, this onset of a mutual_engagement,_both profound and sophisticated, between historiography_and_epistemology_occurred during the 1860s, thus_in the second half of the_19th century and not, as is commonly stated, at_the extreme end_of the 19th century, and_certainly_not_during the first half of the 20th century. Consequently, it_becomes instantly_evident that H._Poincaré and P. Duhem, rather than constituting the starting point_(A. Brenner) or even representing part of_its ancestry (C