Dear List,
Private correspondence/feedback confirmed (somehow, I would say) my
suspicions. A few members seem to locate the first edition of Z's book
in the early nineties (of the XIXth century!), while others suggested
a *century* later. This is interesting. May we assume that _at certain
"scholarly" level_ things (sins and themes) not (seem to) have changed? ...
You will not cream me (won't you?) if I say that I agree entirely with
a good friend when he confides to me (private 'epistola') in connection
with the potential author that "I can think of several recent histories
of mathematics that could be candidates ... indeed, I think *all* recent
history of mathematics texts could be candidates, in one sense ... (that
they are sloppy or historically weak)".
In a message dated Nov 8, 1998, Barnabas Hughes sent to David Fowler
(with a copy to our list) his non-euphemistic message:
"May I respectfully suggest that you respectfully bury Boyer's H of M?
The best HofM in (American) English is by Victor Katz. All your favorite
(dead) female mathematicians are well described (if that's the word) by
Katz."
which prompted Christoph J. Scriba's short reply:
"I don't think that is quite fair. Boyer's books have their weaknesses -
but don't they all? Who else did seriously study the hist. of math. at
his time (leaving aside a few great specialists for certain limited
areas?)."
In another exchange of encountered opinions, may I quote Mike Deakin in
his response to John H. Conway (posting sent to the MHL on Nov 16, 1998):
<begin MD>
"I don't normally take issue with John Conway, but here he is
altogether too kind to a USAnian [at last someone who avoids the
global (everybody should know why) "American" term, JGC] icon.
> May I sneak in a few words in defence of Bell? Lectures on
> mathematical history routinely start with denunciations of him,
> which I think go much too far. He wrote entertainingly and well
> about an enormous amount of mathematics and a large number of
> mathematicians, whereas his typical critic tends to know only
> a small area of mathematics and to have studied the life of
> only one mathematician; when he finds some error in what Bell
> says about his particular baby, he straightaway pours scorn on
> him.
>
> I don't think it's fair to hold only Bell responsible for the
> truth of the anecdotes he retails. Here, for instance, we have
> an anecdote that was clearly told by Gauss himself - I think
> it's fair for someone to suspect Gauss of embroidering the truth,
> but unfair to attack Bell for not sharing those suspicions. A few
> years ago, someone went to a lot of trouble to dig out the truth
> about the Galois duel, and found, of course, that it differed in
> detail from the story that everyone had been telling for 150
> years; and as usual Bell got all the blame.
>
> He's the person that's criticized really because he was the
> first mathematical historian to write substantial biographies
> along with his history, and we should praise him for taking the
> trouble to do so rather than blaming him for the errors in his
> sources.
Actually the trouble is not with Bell's sources, but with what Bell
made of them. Tony Rothman, some years ago, did a hatchet job on
Bell's account of Galois.
In particular: "passaient par la fene^tre" (of Dumas & co) does NOT
mean "passed by the window". Etc.
Every time I've examined Bell in depth, we find like problems.
My erstwhile colleague Gordon Preston is fond of defending Bell, but
admitted that Rothman had shown he was wrong in respect of Galois.
All we need do is check each story (supposing we had the time) to
find like cracks in the plaster.
The other one I came to know well is the account of Heaviside.
Likewise dotty!
If good, lively, but quite unreliable, writing, is to be uncritically
lauded, then I'll go it."
<end MD>
===========
Likewise, Professor GBH did not think that the _hot review_ under review
(namely, that of Z's book) was quite fair, and although GBH acknowledged
some weaknesses in Z's book, also praised the well taken points ("el que
este libre de pecado..."):
<begin>
NOTE ON Y's REVIEW of Z
The review ... of Z's History of Mathematics by Professor Y [the
reviewer] produces an unfair impression. The facts upon which he
says he bases his "harsh statement" do not justify it; and what he
states as his "facts" are in large part not facts, but specimens
of Professor Y's _petitio principii_.
His _First_ is, "The work is, in very considerable measure, merely
a paraphrase of portions of _better_ works". He then cites Ball and
Fink, neither of which is a "better" work; in fact, apart from mere
printer's slips in printing foreign words, Z is superior in point
of actual accuracy to either of them, and incomparably superior in
range.
Contrast Y's _First_ with his _Second_: "One has a right to expect a
rich set of references to the standard literature of the day. Such
references are offered by other histories, however humble, and every
student needs them. Yet in this work there is not a single reference
by volume and page". But neither is there in Fink, though just cited
among those _better_ than Z.
Such references were deliberately abjured by Z as interfering too
seriously with the popular character and readableness of his book.
[...]
Had Professor Z waited to obtain and study all the works of all the
men whose names are so easy for Mr. Y to mention, he might have died
of old age, instead of giving us a charming history of mathematics.
That Mr. Y himself is not above criticism I judge from the fact that
he does not perceive the most serious error in Z's book, pointed out
in [a popular journal of reviews].
Mr. Y's _Third_: "But however charitable the reader may be, he will
close the final chapters with even greater disappointment than he
experienced in reading the earlier ones." I say, on the contrary,
that these very chapters for successful condensed popular statement
of the ground they cover are without rival in the world, in any
language."
"While ... thirty American mathematicians could not be found who
would wish to be mentioned in a work which ignores the names of so
many world-known promoters of the science," -- the word "ignores"
for "omits" seems unfair, and 30 is perhaps a slip for 300.
His "_Fourth_. A final reason ...: the work is carelessly written".
This I beg leave to categorically deny. For example, Chasles's
Christian name is given correctly. But it appears that "carelessly"
is an exaggeration for "not with the _greatest_ care".
"In the bibliography ... errors will be find in" [...] Thus the row
of "numbers" is seen to be unfair.
In the words of the [a journal]'s review: "But these are trifling
faults. What we have a right to expect in such a handbook is an
agreeable narrative of the most material events in the history of
mathematics, and this Professor Z incontestably supplies."
<end>
Con mis mas fraternales saludos,
Julio Gonzalez Cabillon
PS I changed my greetings since another good amigo told me "I just
finished reading your set of extracts with comments from the "unknown"
author's H of M. You need not have ended with your customary and
courteous, "With warmest regards". My screen fairly sizzled as I
scrolled down the review!" ;-)
PPS To be continued...