Abstract

This essay examines different approaches to writing the history of science in light of the increased importance of microhistorical studies in the past two decades. It specifically examines the role of microhistory within the history of science and the importance of Thomas Kuhn’s concept of the “normal exception” in early methodological statements about the function of microhistory. It also considers the possibilities for writing archivally based history of science for a general readership as a means of bridging the divide between specialized research within the subfields of the history of science and more general accounts of the nature and growth of science.Attempts to divide anything into two ought to be regarded with much suspicion.—C. P. Snow