Van Berkel K
Instituut voor Geschiedenis, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
Gewina. 1995;18(2):181-91.
History of science as it was practised in the Netherlands in the second half of the nineteenth century in many respects differed from the way present day historians of science define their field. Whereas today only books and articles count as history of science, a century ago also statues, banquets and ceremonial speeches were regarded as serious ways of reviving the past. In addition, there is the fact that historical considerations were integrated quite naturally into many other activities, such as the teaching of science itself. This was both a measure of the importance of the history of science and an explanation of the invisibility of the history of science as we know it. The differences are illustrated by sketching the way history of science was practised by three leading scientists who were no historians of science: the professor of zoology and microscopy Pieter Harting, the physician and medical professor Barend Joseph Stokvis and the professor of chemistry Jan Willem Gunning. When all is taken in consideration, one might argue that the second half of the nineteenth century was a golden age for the history of science in the Netherlands.
19世纪下半叶在荷兰所践行的科学史，在许多方面与当今科学史家对其领域的定义方式有所不同。如今只有书籍和文章才算作科学史，而一个世纪前，雕像、宴会和仪式性演讲也被视为重现过去的重要方式。此外，历史考量很自然地融入到许多其他活动中，比如科学教学本身。这既是科学史重要性的一种体现，也是我们所熟知的科学史不为人所见的一种解释。通过勾勒三位并非科学史家的杰出科学家践行科学史的方式，可以说明这些差异：动物学和显微镜学教授彼得·哈廷、内科医生兼医学教授巴伦德·约瑟夫·斯托克斯以及化学教授扬·威廉·贡宁。综合各方面因素来看，有人可能会认为19世纪下半叶是荷兰科学史的黄金时代。
