*This is something that I wrote this morning as a response on the History of Astronomy mailing list; having written it I have decided to cross post it here.*

John Briggs is the second person in two days, who has recommended Eric Temple Bell’s “Men of Mathematics”. I can’t remember who the first one was, as I only registered it in passing, and it might not even have been on this particular mailing list. Immediately after John Briggs recommended it Rudi Lindner endorsed that recommendation. This series of recommendations has led me to say something about the role that book played in my own life and my view of it now.

“Men of Mathematics” was the first book on the history of science and/or mathematics that I ever read. I was deeply passionate fan of maths at school and my father gave me Bell’s book to read when I was sixteen years old. My other great passion was history and I had been reading history books since I taught myself to read at the age of three. Here was a book that magically combined my two great passions. I devoured it. Bell has a fluid narrative style and the book is easy to read and very stimulating.

Bell showed me that the calculus, that I had recently fallen in love with, had been invented/discovered (choose the verb that best fits your philosophy of maths), something I had never even considered before. Not only that but it was done independently by two of the greatest names in the history of science, Newton and Leibniz, and that this led to one of the most embittered priority and plagiarism disputes in intellectual history. He introduced me to George Boole, whom I had never heard of before and whose work and its reception in the 19^{th} century I would seriously study many years later in a long-year research project into the history of formal or mathematical logic, my apprenticeship as a historian of science.

Bell’s tome ignited a burning passion for the history of mathematics in my soul, which rapidly developed into a passion for the whole of the history of science; a passion that is still burning brightly fifty years later. So would I join the chorus of those warmly recommending “Men of Mathematics”? No, actually I wouldn’t.

Why, if as I say Bell’s book played such a decisive role in my own development as a historian of mathematics/science, do I reject it now? Bell’s florid narrative writing style is very seductive but it is unfortunately also very misleading. Bell is always more than prepared to sacrifice truth and historical accuracy for a good story. The result is that his potted biographies are hagiographic, mythologizing and historically inaccurate, often to a painful degree. I spent a lot of time and effort unlearning a lot of what I had learnt from Bell. His is exactly the type of sloppy historiography against which I have taken up my crusade on my blog and in my public lectures in my later life. Sorry but, although it inspired me in my youth, I think Bell’s book should be laid to rest and not recommended to new generations.

There is an analogue to Bell’s book that you would instead recommend for young people to read today?

I thought about your question when I was writing my short piece and to be totally honest I don’t know of one. However, having said that, I haven’t kept up with actual entry level history of mathematics/science literature, so I’m not the best person to ask.

“There is an analogue to Bell’s book that you would instead recommend for young people to read today?”Off the top of my head, and with the proviso that I read these decades ago and I haven’t checked the quality against my current knowledge—but they seemed OK at the time:

Constance Reid:

A Long Way from EuclidHersh and Davis:

The Mathematical ExperienceKasner and Newman:

Mathematics and the ImaginationRudy Rucker:

Infinity and the Mind(one of the handful of books which I have read more than once)Note: all the authors have their own Wikipedia pages.

Let me add that Rucker allows me to have an Einstein Number of 4. 🙂

I have of course read all three and Hersh & Davis and Rudy Rucker are both on my bookshelf. Rudy Rucker’s book is indeed very special but I’m not sure if I would recommend it to a school kid.

Depends on the school, and on the kid. 🙂

You mention “all three”; I mentioned four. 😐

I oversaw and haven’t read Reid’s A Long Way From Euclid

DEAR THONYC Have you heared somehing about Jost Bürgi, who was earlier with quinquisection than Briggs? I’m sending you a script I’m working on to illustrade this. Kind regards FRiTZ STAUDACHER

I read “Men of Mathematics” as a teenager. And I was impressed. But it did not turn me into an historian. I stayed with mathematics.

I agree with your criticism. Bell was too much into making it a simplistic story of heros. Reality is far more complex.

As for Leibniz and Newton coming up with Calculus at around the same time — well, we similar “at the same time” events throughout the history of science and mathematics. I’ve long since come to the conclusion that there were suggestive ideas “in the wind” that preceded these developments. It wasn’t mere coincidence.

In my youth dual discoveries in #histSTM (Newton-Leibniz, Darwin-Wallace) were regarded as something special. Now, I think, multiple contemporaneous discoveries/inventions are regarded as the norm. The time was/is ripe!

Not sure it can even be compared to Bell’s work, but perhaps worth noting that Ian Stewart came out this year with “Significant Figures,” his own biographical take on a couple dozen famous mathematicians.

Probably better than Bell in terms of historical accuracy, however although Ian Stewart is very good at explaining maths he does tend to be a bit dodgy on the history.

Bell’s “Men of Mathematics” was the first book on History of Mathematics that I read too. It saddened me later, when I learned more about mathematics, that he had chosen to end his biographies at the close of the 19th Century, for Emmy Noether would have been an excellent subject for his biographical style.

The book I would recommend now is “Thinking about Mathematics” by Stewart Shapiro (ISBN 978-0-19-289306-2), which is not a series of biographies but concentrates instead on the development of mathematical ideas.

Men of Mathematicswas written in 1937 and Emmy Noether had only died two years before. She didn’t really become ‘famous’ till much later as both he theory in physics and her work in abstract algebra took time to become accepted and acknowledged.I’ve only dipped into it here and there, but I’d take a look at John Stillwell’s

Mathematics and Its History, now in its 3rd edition (2010). Stillwell is generally a good writer.That said, I’d still recommend Bell’s book to a young reader, but with a caveat: “This book has inspired many young people to go into math, but a better title for it would be

Myths of Mathematics.”Can I jump in and plug my own book? “The Universe in Zero Words” (Princeton University Press, 2012) was my attempt to choose the 24 greatest equations in mathematical history and give short histories of them. I am not a historian and so my book might not fully live up to Thony C.’s standards, but I tried to be more accurate than Bell and I also tried to give the 20th century its due. (I wrote about six equations from antiquity, six from 1400-1800, six from 1800-1900 and six from 1900 to today.)

I definitely had high-school-age readers in mind when writing the book, although some of the later chapters might be challenging for them. My book was named a finalist for the 2017 Premio Asimov, a science-book prize voted on by 1400 high-school students in Italy. Even though I didn’t win, the nomination validated my belief that such students can still be excited by a book that is true to the history and faithful to the mathematics.

(End blatant self-promotion.)

I never checked the historical accuracy but I found Fermat’s Last Theorem by Simon Singh when I was a mathematics loving kid and loved it (read my paperback copy into pieces). Just knowing that others (and some of them women) had shared my passion was inspiring.

Pingback: Not so much a book review more a WHAT THE F… | The Renaissance Mathematicus